April 20, 2012

By Katy Grimes

Democratic Leaders in the Legislature have figured out a clever way to bypass the legislative committee process, in order to ensure the results they want. This latest legislative trickery and rule manipulation created quite a stir at the state Capitol Thursday.

Earlier in the week, without warning, the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee, chaired by Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, dropped three bills off the schedule. But these weren’t just any bills, they were the bills which make up the mortgage reform “Homeowner Bill of Rights” package, sponsored by Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris.

Ostensibly, this bill package would reform California’s mortgage and real estate crisis.

However, after the Harris bill package dropped off the Assembly committee schedule, a related bill, AB 278 by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, popped up on the Senate floor Thursday, and was shoved through to passage, with only support from Democrats.

AB 278 is just a shill-bill dealing with unlicensed real estate agents. But it is being used fto trigger the necessary procedures required to create a Democratic-controlled conference committee to manage the outcome of the Attorney General’s bills.

Supporters of the conference committee option said that, because the Harris bill package was complex, the conference committee would provide lawmakers the opportunity to deal with the major policy changes.

But others are outraged and say that creating the legislative conference committee will allow the bill package to bypass the entire committee policy and finance process, as well as avoid scrutiny by the public.

Homeowners Bill of Rights

Harris is pushing lawmakers to pass the Homeowners Bill of Rights, patterned after President Barack Obama’s legislation of the same name. The legislation is supposed to protect homeowners facing foreclosure.

But bankers have objections.

Small banks and local credit unions did not cause the mortgage crisis — investment bankers did.

But that’s not stopping lawmakers from punishing all bankers, regardless of the ramifications.

A $25 billion national settlement agreement reached in February, struck among the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 49 state attorneys general and the country’s five largest mortgage loan servicers: Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., JP Morgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company and Ally Financial Inc., according to Forbes.

The five biggest U.S. banks agreed to the deal, which would impose a ban on all banks from filing a foreclosure notice when a homeowner is in the middle of the loan modification process.

The national ban expires in three years, but Harris is pushing for California to keep the ban in place permanently.

Critics say that the bill package in the California Legislature may actually pave the way for more lawsuits, and slow any recent improvements in the already slow-to-recover housing market. With economists predicting another mortgage meltdown, the American economy could be in for an economic hurricane.

Opponents also say that the legislation would create expensive, new lending obligations, which would likely result in a much higher cost to borrow money, which could be an additional blow to the housing market.

However, instead of allowing Harris to defend her bills in the committee hearing, legislators bowed to pressure from above, and pulled the bills from the committee calendar.

Talk around the Capitol after the hearing episode was that the order to pull the bills came from the highest office in the state, and referred to a feud between Gov. Jerry Brown and Harris. But this has not been confirmed.

In the right corner…

Thursday’s maneuver did not go down without a fight. Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, urged Senators to oppose AB 278, and reminded colleagues that the Legislature had recently passed dozens of spot bills, weakening the legislative process. “This is not the historical norm,” Blakeslee said.

Spot bills are empty bills which do not yet contain language, but will be used at the end of the legislative session to pass laws legislators couldn’t get passed through the traditional committee process.

Blakeslee said that in the past, only the state’s 2010 water bond, the 2004 workers compensation reform, and electricity deregulation had been dealt with in conference committee, and only after already being vetted using the standard committee process.

A conference committee is traditionally used to work out the differences which committees could not.

“We are speaking about a bill on real estate,” Blakeslee said.

Blakeslee explained that by avoiding the usual and legal committee process, the public would never hear the policy and financial debate surrounding the bills. He expressed his irritation that the Senate Banking and Finance committee, of which Blakeslee is the vice chairman, would never have a chance to weigh in on the bills.

“There’s not precedence in the use of the conference committee,” Blakeslee said. “I am standing in defense of the majority party. It raises serious questions about to what lengths this body will go to jam through legislation without the types of processes we have historically used.”

“These are regular policy issues. “We should not pervert our process to produce the desired outcome,” Blakeslee said.

“And to the minority party, do not surrender your constitutional power,” Blakeslee added.

Leadership weighs in

“To have hearings on policy is right,” said Senate Minority Leader Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar. “To obfuscate is not.” Huff pointed out that the Senate Joint Rules require that all bills, other than budget bills, must be heard by policy committees of each house.

“We form a conference committee to find a meeting of the minds,” Huff said. “Without normal transparency, major policy issues here will be decided on in some smoke-filled back room. Trampling on the rules is a slippery slope.”

“Read your rules,” Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento replied. “Read your Senate rules. Because we pride ourselves on following the rules, and in this instance we have done so.”

“We’re not trying to hide anything,” said Sen. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego. “Important things can be done in the conference committee.”

Capitol staffers explained that the conference committee members, appointed by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, and Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, will consist of six members in total, made up of one Republican and two Democrats from each house. Committee appointments will be announced next week.

April 18, 2012

By Katy Grimes

Debate over a vaccine bill injected drama into a hearing of the Assembly Health Committee in the California Legislature Tuesday. Legislators ignored parental concerns. And the Capitol sergeants brutalized parents holding infants.

What should have been a hearing addressing parental concerns in a democracy turned into Lobby Day for the California Medical Association and hundreds of public health doctors, medical school students and other medical practitioners who flooded the hearing room in support of AB 2109 by Assemblyman Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, himself a medical doctor.

The unspeakable issue at the root of Pan’s bill is the influx of children from other countries into California’s public schools, who bring with them new strains of measles, mumps, chicken pox and flu bugs, among other communicable diseases. Children who have recently traveled out of the country also bring home infectious diseases.

It is not politically correct to address that problem. Instead the Legislature is proposing that everyone get vaccinated.

It’s no different that a teacher punishing the entire class because of one bad kid. The inability to single out the issue is the problem.

Tense Hearing

The Health Committee chairman, Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Carmel, appeared agitated from the outset of the hearing. He admonished the gathered audience of mostly parents several times before the the hearing even started.

Dean Blumberg, an associate professor for U.C. Davis specializing in infectious diseases, testified in support of Pan’s bill. Blumberg said that, even with the many life-saving vaccinations available, he still sees children who have not been vaccinated. The children end up sick, with preventable illnesses.

And for that reason, Blumberg said California needs to maintain very high school immunization rates. He added that Pan’s bill does not infringe on parents’ rights to choose to vaccinate, or not.

Doctors Show Support for AB 2109

All of the public health players were at the hearing and testified in support of AB 2109: The California Medical Association, the California Pharmacy Association, the Association of Physician Assistants, the California State Employees Association, the County Health Executive Association, as well as the doctors and dentists’ unions.

Doctors and medical students lined up to show support for the bill, and each assured the committee that they would sign a waiver form for parents opting out of vaccinations.

Vehement Opposition to AB 2109

Dawn Winkler testified in opposition to AB 2109, and said that children get more than 50 vaccinations. Winkler, the California State co-director of the National Vaccine Information Center, and executive director of Health Advocacy in the Public Interest, said the bill was not about parents receiving more accurate information about vaccinations. “They already have that available,” Winkler said. “This is about parents’ rights, under the law. Why on earth should parents have to obtain more information about vaccinations and opt-out permission? This will interfere with the right to free education and the right to religious freedom. This bill poses a threat to freedom.”

Hundreds of parents testified that they have been “fired” by their childrens’ pediatricians for refusing vaccinations. “I’ve been bullied by my pediatrician, harassed, and kicked out,” one woman explained. Many others relayed similar stories.

Bob Sears, a private practice pediatrician and 14-year member of the American Association of Pediatricians, said he believesin providing vaccinations, but expressed concern over evidence that many doctors will not sign the waiver for parents to opt-out of vaccinations. “A study of over 1,000 pediatricians found that 39 percent of the American Association of Pediatricians said they will kick parents out if vaccinations are refused,” Sears said.

The bill’s sponsors, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the California Medical Association and the Health Officers Association of California, said that the continued increase in personal belief exemptions and resultant decreases in community immunization rates “could have a significant impact on public safety and because PBEs are relatively easy to obtain,” and recommend strong support for AB 2109.

“How many kids won’t be able to sign up for school?” Sears asked. “Free choice is not having to get a doctor to sign off on a free choice.”

Sears said that the  Centers for Disease Control admits that as many as 30,000 adverse reactions to vaccinations are reported every year. And between 3,000 and 4,500 severe vaccine reactions, up to and including death, occur every year in the United States. Some doctors say that the numbers of severe reactions to vaccinations are much higher than the CDC’s numbers.

Parents Oppose AB 2109

Testifying in opposition to AB 2109, hundreds of chiropracters, parents, medical doctors and students lined up and shared why they oppose the bill.

“Two of my three children are vaccination-injured,”  one mother said. Parent after parent testified about vaccine-injured children, and why they opted not to vaccinate the rest of their kids. Others reported that they had been harassed, bullied and kicked out of numerous pediatricians’ offices for refusing vaccinations for their children.

One physician said that children in foreign countries are healthier than American children because they don’t get the 50 vaccinations American children get.

Parents testified that they were intelligent and educated enough to make the decision to vaccinate or not. “I am a Carnegie Mellon graduate. My son got the mandatory Hepatitus B cavvination and got very sick,” a mother testified.

“I am a member of MENSA,  have a bachelors degree and am smart enough to make the choice for my family,” another mother testified.

An attorney testified that she represents parents over privacy and HIPPA rights. The HIPAA Privacy Rule provides federal protections for personal health information held by doctor’s offices, and gives patients an array of rights with how that information is used.

Committee Questions AB 2109

Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, asked what will happen to school-aged children if parents can’t get a doctor to sign off on the vaccination opt-out waiver. Pan said that there are 150,000 medical practitioners in the state. “We will get somebody to sign the form,” Pan said.

But Sears disagreed. “The biggest issue is: Can you find a doctor to sign the form?”

Logue pressed for an answer. “I asked what happens if no one signs the form?”

“Children can’t go to school,” Winkler said.

Logue asked if parents will be billed for an office visit if the physician will not sign the waiver for parents who choose not to vaccinate.

Pan tried to convey that some of the visits to doctors are considered well-care, and under some insurance, parents will not be billed. “We want these kids to go to school,” Pan said.

“But will the insurance company charge them?” Logue asked. He never received an answer.

“How do we know parents lack information?” Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, R-Costa Mesa, asked. “How do we know that they aren’t already informed?”

“Some parents are, but many others are uncertain,” Pan said. “Outbreaks are possible if people have been traveling…. It’s about the other children at school. They depend on the rest of us to get vaccinated,” Pan said.

But that was as far as Dr. Pan went, despite the elephant in the room.

Parental Rights v. Public Health

Most parents were at the hearing concerned about injuries and illnesses from vaccinations. And many of the parents present had children who had been vaccine-injured, including autistic children. There is a growing belief that the dramatic rise in autism is directly related to the increase in childhood vaccinations.

But Monning would not allow anyone to discuss this angle. Only Assemblyman Brian Nestande, R-Palm Desert, managed to ask a question about the correlation between vaccinations and autism, and Monning told him to wrap it up quickly. “The bill does not mandate immunization, just counseling of parents,” Monning said.

Pan interjected that there are recent studies showing a link between obesity and autism, “but the bill is not about that.”

Sears said that the real reason there are illness outbreaks is that many vaccinations wear off quickly. “The point is not because of unvaccinated children. The recent Pertussis whooping cough outbreak was caused by the vaccination wearing off. It was found to be only 41 percent effective,” Sears said.

Sears said that he is not against vaccinations, and administers many to his patients. “Not all vaccinations work well, and you can’t blame the unvaccinated children,” Dr. Sears added. “The issue I am against is taking away the choice of parents.”

Blumberg told the committee that it was apparent the parents present at the hearing were educated and informed, and were not the parents being targeted by the bill.

Bill Passed Out of the Committee

April 14, 2012

By Katy Grimes

What a train wreck. Barreling down the tracks in one direction, on April 9 a congressional committee launched a probe California’s high-speed rail project over charges of conflicts of interest and questionable spending of federal dollars.  Barreling head-on toward it from the other direction, on April 12 the California High-Speed Rail Authority voted to approve its own revised business plan.

The state action leaves only an up-or-down vote from the state Legislature to break ground on a project the CHSRA now pegs at costing $68.4 billion.

The project costs have varied from an original estimate of $33 billion, to an official high estimate of $98.5 billion, and back down to a dubious $68.4 billion. But the Legislative Analyst’s Office said that it is “highly uncertain if funding to complete the high-speed rail system will ever materialize,” and rail experts have estimated the project will cost more than $136 billion.

The next stop for the CHSRA is to convince the Legislature to approve the project in order to move full steam ahead. Right now, the rail authority and supportive Democrats are counting noses in the Legislature to determine where the needed votes will come from.

Reublicans want the plan demolished, and Democrats aren’t talking much at all.

However, Article XVl of the California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to either pull the plug on high-speed rail, or at the very least, reduce the amount of indebtedness, if no debt has been contracted.

There is still plenty of time to stop this runaway train.

What Voters Approved in 2008

California voters approved Proposition 1A in 2008, the “Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century.” Here are some details:

* $33.5 billion cost. They approved a total cost of $33.5 billion for a high-speed rail system. The $33.5 billion was to be made up of a combination of 1/3 federal funds, 1/3 state funds and 1/3 private funds. Importantly, the investment from California taxpayers was limited to a $9.95 billion bond.

Today, the costs have skyrocketed to $98.5 billion from $33.5 billion, reliance on federal funds has increased by more than six times the original cost and no private funders have materialized to invest in the project.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said it’s highly unlikely any private parties will pony up investment money on the project. “There are no private party investments, and no earnest deposits,” Harkey said. “As long as California continues with this plan, we will never attract private capital.

Instead, the state is taking a hugh risk with taxpayer “capital.”

* S.F. to L.A. Voters approved a system connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles, with a trip time of two hours and 40 minutes, at a cost of $55 per ticket. But the plan has veered sharply inland from San Francisco to Los Angeles, over to the Central Valley, with a leg from Fresno to Bakersfield. And the cost of the trip jumped to $105.

* Ridership: 95 million. Even ridership numbers have been toyed with. Voters were told that there would be a ridership of 95 million passengers by 2030. Ridership estimates have decreased nearly three times since 2008, and they are still absurdly inflated. In the new report, they’re estimated to be as high as 36 million passengers by 2060 (page 5-17). That’s about a third of the Prop. 1A promise.

* Bond repayment. Repaying high-speed rail bonds will cost the state’s General Fund $647 million per year for 30 years, or approximately $20 billion for the $9.95 billion bond.

High-Speed Fairy Tale

The High-Speed Rail Authority claims that high-speed rail throughout the world runs profitably. But:

France subsidizes its high-speed rail system by nearly $10 billion annually. Japan subsidizes its rail system with nearly $2 billion annually. And Spain spends nearly $3 billion on high-speed rail subsidies every year.

“Jobs, jobs, jobs” was the campaign rally cry for Jerry Brown during his run for governor, and when he vowed his support for high-speed rail. He supported it so much it’s earned the nickname the “Browndoggle.”

But while Brown continues to blindly support the rail plan, the High-Speed Rail Authority claims that the project will create 20,000 jobs. However, a January report by the Assembly Republican Caucus found that there is evidence to prove that the rail authority overstated job creation by nearly 50 percent. “Even using the HSRA optimistic job creation estimates for Phase l, California investment will be about $1.96 million per job created, or $5.8 million per direct job created,” the caucus report found.

The rail authority must have used the New Math to calculate jobs. The HSRA claims that jobs are calculated in “job-years.” One year of full employment equals a job-year. Therefore, one person employed for 20 years counts as 20 “jobs” using this new math.

Greenhouse gases

The High-Speed Rail Authority has always claimed that the rail plan will dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But estimates of just how much carbon emissions will be reduced have gone from absurdly high, to only ridiculously high. Now “methods are still being developed” to determine just how much GHG will be reduced.

Even the California Air Resources Board in its AB 32 scoping plan dramatically dropped the estimates of greenhouse gas reductions for high-speed rail by 82 percent of what voters were promised in 2008.

High-Speed Rail 5.0

Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, calls the latest reincarnation of the high-speed rail business plan, “High-Speed Rail 5.0.”

“In plan number one we had the ballot initiative and cost estimates of $33 to $45 billion. Plan number two was up the ticket prices,” La Malfa said. “Plan number three was the $98.5 billion plan. Plan number four was the $68 billion plan, and Orange County was kicked out. Plan number five is the latest business plan approval with Orange County back in.”

Harkey added that the plan is wrought with inconsistencies and violations of the 2008 law. She explained that it’s not high-speed rail if it will be used in crowded urban areas such as Orange County. Nor can high-speed rail be used in moving freight.

What’s Ahead For High-Speed Rail?

The Legislature has until Aug. 31 to authorize the bond sale that would get the project started. While Republicans can’t kill the rail project by themselves, there are many Democrats who are not supportive of it, but appear to be holding out to make deals on local transit projects.

Keep an eye on termed-out legislators, or legislators who don’t have to run again until 2014 for key votes on the plan.

Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, has been somewhat cryptic in his comments about the rail project. Simitian has warned the rail authority several times in committee hearings that it needed to have a more realistic business plan or state funding for the rail project would be cut off, but repeatedly says that he favors high-speed rail “if done right.”

While Simitian has voiced concerns aloud in committee hearings, he has voted to pass rail bills, while simultaneously telling the rail authority and committee members to provide him with amendments addressing his concerns.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-San Diego, chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, notified the California High-Speed Rail Authority about the probe earlier this week, and ordered the agency to preserve its documents and records.

Issa’s committee announced earlier this week that it’s questioning whether the $4 billion from the federal government has been spent appropriately, and said they want to investigate possible conflicts of interest between rail officials and contractors.

“California high-speed rail was sold to voters as a grand vision for tomorrow but in practice appears to be no different than countless other pork-barrel projects — driven more by political interests and consultant spending than valid cost-benefit analysis,” Issa said. “Before more taxpayer money is sent to the rail authority, questions must be answered about mismanagement, conflicts of interest, route selection, ridership and other risks.”

While offering her praise last week for Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised approach on California’s high-speed rail, U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein still cautioned that the federal funding for the project could depend on final cost projections. But that was last week’s high-speed rail plan. This week the plan is again different.

“If this was a debate, the rail authority would get smoked,” La Malfa added. “This is the most abusive waste of the taxpayers’ money, and one of the biggest frauds since the $600 toilet seats” for military aircraft, a scandal from the past.

April 5, 2012

By Katy Grimes

The California Air Resources Board has created a stealthy new corporation in Delaware. The Western Climate Initiative Inc., which will manage cap-and-trade programs, even has its own form of currency.

WCI Inc. says it exists “to perform administrative and technical services to support the carbon trading market, including market monitoring of allowance auctions, and market trading of compliance instruments.”

“CARB is creating a whole new currency with these pollution certificates,” explained Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point. “Initially the state was to unite with other Western states to reduce the purported menace to the future of our planet,” Harkey said. “However, our partners determined that they would prefer not to tackle the issue during a recession; the cost of making their states less competitive in a tough business environment outweighed the benefit.”

Harkey has been trying to get her legislative colleagues to understand that the “fix,” setting a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels, with increasing population on the horizon, “is guaranteed to cost employers and everyday people more for the electricity and products they need. California’s only remaining partner is the Canadian province of Quebec.”

At a recent legislative hearing with CARB officials, Harkey asked why WCI was registered in Delaware and not in California. But CARB’s Richard Corey couldn’t provide a legitimate reason. “WCI is an established … it’s a program to link with others,” Corey said. “Many California companies are incorporated in Delaware, like Chevron and Disney,” Corey added. “And the Delaware incorporation law is taught in law schools around the country. It was on the advice of counsel.”

“California has Sunshine laws and open hearing regulations,” Harkey said. “We have public funds we are dealing with here, not like Chevron or Disney.” Harkey noted that Delaware is not subject to California state open meeting or sunshine laws, leaving many questioning why the WCI opted for such secrecy.

The WCI Board of Directors is made up of Matt Rodriquez, the newly appointed secretary for the California Environmental Protection Agency; James Goldstene, CARB chairman and CEO; and the equivalent officials for the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Quebec. No other America states are involved.

The Fleecing Game

Imagine 50 million Californians living on less water and electricity than 38 million Golden Staters do now. That’s the scheme being hatched by some state officials and legislators. With the state’s population growing at about 3.4 million a decade, the 50 million figure should be reached around 2040.

Instead of addressing the historic economic and energy problems in the state, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown continues to push the High-Speed Rail plan. This week its supposed cost was scaled back from $98 billion to a mere $68 billion.

To fund his pet choo-choo, now he’s pushing a cap-and-trade program to sell carbon credits.

Brown and public employee unions have also proposed a $9 billion tax-increase ballot initiative.

California is no longer a manufacturing leader, but is leading the country in manufacturing schemes.

Schemes

Top of the list of schemes is cap-and-trade, or emission trading–a way to tax residents and businesses by another name.

Throw in renewable energy mandates and the implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, and it’s clear state leaders are closing their eyes as the California Express runs off the rails.

Legislators are still too busy patting themselves on the back for passage of the extremeRenewable Portfolio Standardlast year. But lawmakers will soon be forced to address the impending energy crisis their own laws caused. That’s because their renewable energy mandates won’t be able to power the Golden State.

You Pat My Back, I’ll Pat Yours

The California Independent System Operator, is a quasi-governmental agency which regulates the reliability of the state’s energy grid. In a recent study, it  warned that, as California tries to meet the stringent requirements of the Renewable Portfolio Standard of 33 percent renewable energy production, “so does the need for flexible capacity resources.”

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

The “intermittent resources” referred to by CalISO are wind, solar, algae, ethanol and all other earth-friendly fuels. While they are not consistently reliable energy sources, most can serve as intermittent alternatives.

The 33 percent figure is the highest in the country after the Legislature pushed through and passed the environmentally restrictive Renewable Portfolio Standard. It mandates that California obtain 33 percent of all electricity from renewable resources by 2020. This figure includes all of the energy purchased outside of California. Energy experts say that California purchases more than 30 percent of its energy from out of state.

Carbon Trading Scheme

It appears that CalISO doesn’t believe that meeting the 33 percent renewable energy mandate is possible. Its study said, “California is making plans to link the cap-and-trade system with that of Quebec in 2012, under the auspices of the Western Climate Initiative, but challenges remain as allowances trade at record lows.” So far, no other countries are interested in participating in trading carbon credits.

However, the California-Quebec relationship is not trading apples-to-apples: Quebec gets 97 percent of its energy from hydroelectric sources. California is trying to reduce traditional electricity production, including hydroelectric power, and instead replace it with as much “renewable” energy as possible from wind and solar, algae and ethanol. But energy experts have been saying in recent months that California’s energy demand is too much for the alternative energy and lower usage standards.

Additionally, Quebec has only 80 regulated industries; California regulates more than 300 industries.

“This will create the largest carbon market in North America and provide a model that can guide future efforts to establish a creative road map for future national approaches in Canada and the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Western Climate Initiative Inc. co-chairmen James Goldstene, executive officer of the California Air Resources Board, and Jim Whitestone of Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment, at a recent hearing about cap-and-trade.

CARB officials plan on giving away free carbon allowances for the first auction “to the State’s large industrial emitters as well as the State’s electric utilities in order to reduce the economic impact of the cap-and-trade program,” a background paper explained.

But it appears that state officials have quietly recognized that selling carbon credits could actually do more damage to the state. The first carbon auction has been postponed from August to after the November election – with little comment, and no fanfare.

Carbon Currency

California’s new cap-and-trade program places a limit on greenhouse gas emissions from the businesses and entities responsible for approximately 80 percent of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.  CARB will issue carbon allowances to these businesses and entities, which will be able to turn around and sell them to other businesses on the open market.

The “cap” is the state-imposed limit on businesses that emit greenhouse gasses, and the “trade” is the sale of carbon credits to other businesses. It’s the ultimate example of the government picking which businesses get to survive, and which will not, because not just anyone can purchase or sell carbon credits. Only the businesses chosen by CARB get to sell, and profit, from selling carbon credits to polluters.

Businesses will be limited on how many credits they can purchase. If a business produces more carbon emissions than the state allotted, CARB will issue stiff fines and penalties. Or the business can just reduce their production output and lose money instead.

Cap-and-trad emission credits are not a new scheme. For years, the state’s many air quality management districts have been requiring certain polluting businesses to purchase “clean air credits” from larger government approved companies, which were allowed to purchase up most of the credits. It’s a government run pay-to-play scheme.

“The capital gains from trading in the new currency of pollution ‘allowance certificates’ could very well create the next boom and bust cycle for our state if the scheme works as planned,” Harkey said. “With the creation of a carbon market for pollution, California will be monetizing pollution and charging businesses and residents for the air we breathe. We are getting fleeced.”

April 3, 2012

Katy Grimes:

Proposition 209, a constitutional amendment that prohibits the government from granting educational or employment preferences to individuals based on race, was surprisingly upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Monday. The 9th Circuit had already issued a previous opinion in the 1990s upholding the voter-approved law.

But this decision appears to make have disappointed much of the media.

“Civil rights groups and aspiring minority college students have lost the latest bid to get the University of California to resume considering race in its admissions decisions,” the Los Angeles Times wrote.

“Affirmative action proponents took a hit Monday as a federal appeals court panel upheld California’s ban on using race, ethnicity and gender in admitting students to public colleges and universities,” wrote the Sacramento Bee.

“The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding so-called Proposition 209 comes as affirmative action resurfaces as a live issue at the top of the U.S. legal system,” Reuters reported.

Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Ralph Kasarda, argued in favor of the ban and upholding the law, and described the case as “redundant and baseless.”

“The bottom line from both decisions by the 9th Circuit – today’s and the ruling 15 years ago – is that California voters have every right to prohibit government from color-coding people and playing favorites based on individuals’ sex or skin color,”Kasarda said in a statement.

The case is now headed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear an appeal by a white female student applicant who was denied undergraduate admission in 2008 to the University of Texas at Austin.

There is plenty of precedence in this case. After the City of San Francisco continued giving  women and minorities an advantage in bidding for city contracts even after Prop 209 was voted into law, the Pacific Legal Foundation sued saying that the practice violated Proposition 209. In a 6-1 ruling in August 2010, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 209 does not violate the federal constitution.

 Last year, in blatant violation of Proposition 209, the California Legislature passed SB 185, to require state colleges and universities to use race in admissions policies. Despite taking an oath to uphold the state’s constitution, the bill’s constitutionality appeared irrelevant to state legislators.

American Civil Rights Institute founder Ward Connerly, co-author of Prop 209, said that SB 185 was a “priority of the legislative Latino caucus. And the Latino caucus is the 800-pound elephant in the room,” having passed several educational preference bills this year.

Connerly said that SB 185 was shoved through the Legislature quickly, even after two previous attempts to pass nearly identical bills were vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Despite Schwarzenegger’s veto messages that the bills were unconstitutional, Connerly said that Democrats figured that if they could get the bill to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown’s desk quickly, he would sign it. But he didn’t – Brown vetoed the bill, knowing that it couldn’t be upheld if legally challenged.

“Signing this bill is unlikely to impact how Proposition 209 is ultimately interpreted by the courts; it will just encourage the 209 advocates to file more costly and confusing lawsuits,” Brown wrote in the veto message.

The law is so inconvenient when it doesn’t fit the liberal agenda.

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/04/03/ca-ban-on-racial-preferences-upheld/

April 3, 2012

By Katy Grimes

As California politicians show more desperation to build any part of the California High-Speed Rail system in order to get their hands on $3.5 billion in federal stimulus money, the plan is looking more like a whack-a-mole game. But every hole that is plugged, every detail that is softened or tweaked, and every cost estimate that is changed causes a bigger problem. The cover-up is worse than the original crime.

It is important to remember that high-speed rail is not really about achieving sexy world-class transportation for the purpose of serious people moving. It’s just a pipeline project for grabbing big money. Because of the illegitimacy of the project’s intent, the mole could be permanently whacked, and leave California taxpayers holding the bill.

The most recent miracle cure was yesterday’s announcement of the newest revised business plan, in which the cost  of the project will be reduced to $68 billion from $98.6 billion by expanding the 130-mile line from Fresno to Bakersfield, to Merced to San Fernando Valley, for a 300-mile segment.

But there is quiet talk about electrifying only some of the track, and using pre-existing Amtrack rails. “Instead of building costly new raised viaducts and underground tunnels, the high-speed trains would run where possible on existing lines, such as Caltrain’s Peninsula infrastructure,” the San Francisco Examiner reported. But existing track cannot accommodate the 200 mph. The new business plan makes this just a train, not high-speed rail as was required by Proposition 1A, the 2008 ballot initiative authorizing the train.

Houston, we have a mandate

With politicians and High-Speed Rail Authority officials working all last year to smooth over the complex and conflicting details of the bulging $98 billion High-Speed Rail plan, oddly enough, they’ve created an even larger problem than the growing dissent by the voters. They are now violating important mandates in the 2008 law.

Proposition 1A, $9 billion in bonds for high-speed rail, included numerous mandates, none of which can be legally bypassed on the way to building the massive train system.

Top on the list is that the rail system must be high-speed. “Electric trains that are capable of sustained maximum revenue operating speeds of no less than 200 miles per hour,” the law states. However, much of the first segment between Fresno and Bakersfield is not high-speed; nor will high-speed be attainable in dense cities.

Rail Authority Chairman Dan Richard recently said at a legislative hearing that the Rail Authority “never intended, our business plan does not contemplate, that we would operate a high-speed rail system only in the Central Valley.”

Mandates

But his statement runs counter to Proposition 1A:

* Prop. 1A stipulates 11 requirements that must be met before funds can be released for the construction of a “corridor” or “usable segment.”  Specifically, some of these requirements include actual high-speed train service, ridership, revenue projections and planned passenger service.

* “The high-speed train system shall be planned and constructed in a manner that minimizes urban sprawl and impacts on the natural environment,” the law states. But the impact of the rail system may actually create suburban communities around train stations within reasonable distances from urban areas and higher employment areas.

The train system will also dissect both urban and rural communities which will be problematic, as well as a serious violation of the “natural environment.” The trains will travel through densely populated cities, but also through sensitive agricultural and natural areas in the state.

* The success of any legitimate transportation system must be based on connectivity. “For each corridor described in subdivision (b), passengers shall have the capability of traveling from any station on that corridor to any other station on that corridor without being required to change trains,” the law states. “Stations shall be located in areas with good access to local mass transit or other modes of transportation.”  This means that unless there are extensive connecting rail systems already in place in the high-speed rail destinations, cab companies, limo services and car rental companies should be lining up to rent space in the train stations. Commuters will not have the necessary train and bus systems to transfer to with the existing plan.

* The California High-Speed Rail Authority must have all of the the funding ahead of time, before any construction starts on a new segment.

* The high-speed train system must operate on its own entirely, and in the black. That means operating profitably, and includes caveats of no government subsidy. The plan relies heavily on a projection of 100 million users by 2030, a notion that was created with manipulated data, and is absurd.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, has railed consistently against the implementation of the plan. Even though voters were deceived by the ballot summary and language, Harkey has said that the entire project is lacking in private, public and debt funding to complete even the most minor operating segment.

In addition, Harkey has said the mandatory Environmental Impact Report for the system is not complete. Yet the law calls for certified EIR’s for each segment of the system. California already is running endemic budget deficits. Yet Gov. Jerry Brown is pushing for additional and higher taxes. State officials have been ignoring the state’s infrastructure needs and massive maintenance and repair.

Fortunately, voters are now suspicious about the rail system they approved in 2008.

With all of this information available, who or what keeps pushing for the already bankrupt rail system to begin construction?

Follow the money 

One need not look any further than the utility bills that come in the mail. Pacific Gas &Electric and Southern California Edison will be providing the electricity for high-speed rail, with estimates of additional demands for electricity already coming in at 1 percent to 5 percent of the state’s total energy usage, according to a Capitol staffer who asked to remain anonymous. “EvenCal ISO doesn’t have any estimates for the cost,” the staffer said. “High-speed rail has got to consume a great deal of power. Where will the power come from?”

Surprisingly, the California Independent System Operator  has no estimates for energy usage about high-speed rail on its website, as would be expected given the size and scope of the project.

But according to a July 2011 energy usage analysis prepared for the California High-Speed Rail Program Management Team, total electricity usage for the proposed rail system would be “8.32 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) per day,” and more than 3 billion kWh per year.

The average three-person household in California is about 6,000 kWh per year, or a little more than 2,000 KWh per person.

According to the California Public Utilities Commission, electricity customers in the state paid an average rate of about 15.2 cents per kWh.

At 15.2 cents per kWh, the total utility bill for high-speed rail would be nearly $1.26 million per day, and more than $460 million per year. And that’s probably a very conservative estimate.

Show me the money

Along with every imaginable labor union in the state, a report from “Follow the Money” shows that PG&E spent $20,000 in support of Prop. 1A in 2008.

Both PG&E and SCE also have given large campaign contributions to Gov. Jerry Brown, who actively campaigned on the high-speed rail issue when he ran for governor in 2010. Brown received $31,580 from PG&E during his gubernatorial campaign, and$25,000 from SCE.

While those investments seem relatively small for a $460 million per year payout, how many clients of PG&E and SCE currently use up to 5 percent of the state’s total electricity?

And who could forget the other big PG&E connection? Brown recently appointed High-Speed Rail Authority Chairman Dan Richard, a former senior vice president of public policy and governmental relations at PG&E.

Where will the power come from?

With California’s climate-change mantra of “no dirty coal,” “no natural gas,” no hydroelectricity” and “no nuclear power,” many wonder if the high-speed trains will be powered by windmills, solar panels and algae.

Remember that California passed the climate change law, AB 32, in 2006, and the Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate in 2011. Both greatly restrict energy usage, and force energy producers to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable resources.

There isn’t enough wind, sun or algae in the Western Hemisphere to power a 200mph train up and down the state.

With the state taking the Klamath hydroelectric dam offline, cutting coal reliance, refusing to reinvest in nuclear power and essentially creating an energy shortage, when California has another inevitable blackout, what will be powered — our homes, or the high-speed train? Hospitals, or the high-speed train? Schools, or the high-speed train? Businesses, or the high-speed train?

The Legislature is creating a massive energy problem in California, and refusing to do anything about it. But maybe, just maybe, the law will rescue the voters this time.

Katy Grimes: Silencing dissenting political opinions is a tactic used throughout history when one political party dominates. In Democratically-dominated California, some on the left are trying to gin up interest in silencing talk radio.

Across the U.S., there have been frequent discussions and even attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, an FCC-imposed law which was supposedly designed to ensure that broadcasters addressed political issues with a full spectrum of opinion. But it did not work, and was eliminated in 1987 during the Reagan Administration.

Currently, the left is going after Clear Channel Comunications, the parent company of thousands of radio stations across the country. Clear Channel also just happens to broadcast talk show personality Rush Limbaugh.

If you google “Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh,” stories from the left calling for Clear Channel to drop Limbaugh’s show from the airwaves dominate the story choices.

“In Sacramento, Clear Channel Communications broadcasts about 190 hours per week of one-sided political talk over three giant stations, KFBK-AM, KGBY-FM and AMFM Holding’s KSTE-AM,” Sue Wilson wrote last Sunday in the Sacramento Bee opinion pages. Wilson is a  former local NPR radio host, is clearly politically liberal, and started the Media Action Center, a group which appears to have been created solely to target Clear Channel.

Wilson wrote unabashedly that Clear Channel is violating “the First Amendment rights of all who equally own the public airwaves, disagree with right-wing politics, but are not allowed to be heard at all. It is a matter of access, says the Supreme Court.”

Under the guise of “it’s not fair,” Wilson complained loudly in her op ed that while the First Amendment is practiced in broadcasting, Clear Channel “broadcasters are stamping out the rights of liberals” through talk radio, and the dominance of more conservative radio programs.

Wilson lives and works in Democratically controlled California — a veritable feeding ground for left-leaning politicians, and comfortable home to Democratic politics. It doesn’t get any easier for a liberal than California. Yet, Wilson complained loudly that conservative talk radio dominates the talk radio format. But her argument was devoid of reason — she apparently forgot to demand equal time for liberals and conservatives on television and in print.

Ignoring for a moment, supply and demand economics and how the free market works, this is not a new issue for Wilson. She has publicly whined about the unfairness of talk radio for years, which is somewhat surprising since she worked for Capitol Public Radio in Sacramento, an NPR affiliate that does very well.

The first thing listed on her Media Action Group website, is a demand to boycott Rush Limbaugh advertisers. However, I dare to suggest that Wilson has figured out that she can promote herself in liberal circles by continually attaching her name to Limbaugh’s. There’s no one more polarizing to liberal media folk than Limbaugh.

Liberal radio is not only a financial failure, it’s boring. But more importantly, by working as a shill for the Fairness Doctrine, Wilson is in effect demanding that the government force Clear Channel, a private business, to carry a product that people don’t want to buy.

Clear Channel is in business to make a profit. So was Air America, but Air America was unable to make a go of it. Clear Channel has gone out of its way, at great expense, to sign big talk show names, and has invested significantly in radio stations, radio personalities and programs.

I don’t have a beef with any talk radio, and don’t feel threatened by liberal or conservative shows competing. But Wilson only complained about three of the six stations operated by Clear Channel in the Sacramento area – only the three stations which broadcast conservative talk radio. The Sacramento market isn’t huge, at only about 50 radio stations. The two Clear Channel stations which broadcast Limbaugh, are ranked only 7th and 17th in the Sacramento market.

But Wilson ignored Salem Broadcasting, which operates several radio stations in Sacramento, and broadcasts conservatives Bill Bennett, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt, as well as Christian radio.

The beauty of the free market is that we can either tune into another radio program or turn the radio off. Dictating that Clear Channel cut some Limbaugh programming for alternative, progressive radio is a very dangerous statist policy, and should be fought, whether we like Limbaugh’s show or not.

But that’s not enough for Wilson — she thinks that she, Democrats and the government should be able to dictate just how much conservative radio is broadcast.

The Liberal agenda already controls the majority of media through television news, newspapers, and news shows. The entertainment industry is dominated by the liberal agenda, which slants most movies and television to the left, and regularly rewrites history. However, if you don’t like a television show or movie, you can turn it off and seek out something more to yor liking.

“Yes, it is censorship for the government to tell hosts what they may or may not say,” Wilson wrote. “But when Clear Channel puts one political point of view on our public airwaves to the exclusion of all others, that is private censorship.”

We need more speech, not less, as Wilson calls for. This is where liberals prove that they are not selling free speech for all — they want free speech for themselves, and silence for the rest of the talkers.

MAR. 28, 2012

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/03/28/free-speech-under-attack-in-sac/

Katy Grimes: Taking a page from national political campaigns, California’s highly politically charged Air Resources Board made a surprise decision yesterday to postpone the first cap and trade auction from August to November — after the November election.

At an informational hearing about how to spend the proceeds of the sale of carbon permits, Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board announced  that the first carbon permit auction will be moved to November 14th.

The California Air Resources Board has been planning to sell the emission rights (carbon credits), claiming the sales will raise $4 billion in 2012-13, and help shore-up the state’s deficit. But this $4 billion is not new revenue coming into the state; the $4 billion will come from taxpayers, homeowners, business owners, and utility users, in addition to the high taxes and utility costs we already pay.

Hedging their bets, it’s clearly a political, “just-in-case,”  strategical move:

– Just-in-case anyone in the media decides to report on what cap and trade will actually cost California businesses;

– Just-in-case utility rate payers start screaming about increasing utility bills;

– Just-in-case the carbon trading scams become public;

– Just-in-case California energy companies aren’t able to force energy suppliers to get 33 percent of their electricity from renewable resources, particularly after taking California’s hydroelectric producing Klamath Dam offline;

– Just-in-case more California solar companies file bankruptcy, even after receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies from the government;

– Just-in-case voters notice they are being lied to about the long-term effects of climate change.

The people paying the bills in California are not climate change deniers, we are climate change realists.

MAR. 28, 2012

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/03/28/climate-change-waits-for-nov-election/

Katy Grimes: 20,000 California teachers found pink slips in their mailboxes recently.  According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the termination notices are the result of a more than $10 billion deficit and decades of reckless overspending.

With California’s education bureaucracy claiming to be teetering on the edge of even more classroom cutbacks, most would expect that California’s political class would be looking at every possible way to divert money back into education. Schools and teachers report that they already have to make choices between  reading specialists and basic classroom needs like paper, pencils, erasers, paint, scissors, and crayons.

The ballot in June instead shows just the opposite is happening. As Ventura County Supervisor Peter Foy recently wrote, “…instead of reining in their habit of creating new autopilot spending programs that only add to an already too-big bureaucracy, state politicians have come up with a new ballot-box boondoggle. Proposition 29 on our June 5 ballot creates yet another government bureaucracy… even though we can barely afford to fund the programs we already have.”

Proposition 29 will ensure that more California teachers will receive a pink slip, as will police officers and firefighters, as a bigger chunk of California’s spending goes towards paying off special interests.

Behind this measure lurks Don Perata, notorious politician and former state Senator. Perata is pushing Proposition 29, the ballot measure that would create a brand new state spending program on the backs of the same overburdened taxpayers.  Called the California Cancer Research Act, the measure would add nearly $1 billion worth of new spending annually, and pay for it with tax hikes on Californians.

If the ballot initiative is approved by California’s voters, the tax on cigarettes in the state will increase by $1.00 per pack — again. Unaccountable bureaucrats will be allowed to spend $110 million every year to buy equipment, buildings and real estate, under the guise of anti-smoking. The additional tax revenue will be used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs, and tobacco law enforcement. This spending will also include $16 million for 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 reported:

“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.”

That Perata is a career politician, should be reason enough to vote against Prop 29. But that is just the tip of the iceberg. The fine print in the measure will provide voters even more reasons to reject this flawed spending measure.

Proposition 29 raises taxes by nearly $1 billion per year and would give completely authority over the money to a commission staffed with six political appointees. The spending decisions of this commission would be untouchable by the Governor and the state Legislature, even in cases of fraud, waste or abuse. There are no restrictions on how the $1 billion by taxing Californians raised can be spent – the money could be spent out of state or even overseas.

The charade is that 20,000 California teachers just received pink slips, and now Perata and cohorts plan to spend money on facilities that Californians will never see, and programs that will probably do nothing to end tobacco-related illnesses — the ballot measure just a convenient vessel for government spending, hiding behind a health issue.

While California’s tax-and-spend lobby can’t get its priorities straight, California voters still can — Proposition 29 is a massive spending boondoggle, and needs to be defeated.

MAR. 30, 2012

Katy Grimes: The state is trying to prevent employers from legally looking into the employment backgrounds of job applicants.

A bill claiming to “protect” the unemployed from discrimination by potential employers is making its way through the Legislature.

The government already protects racial minorities, veterans, older workers, women, pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, the disabled, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, and religious individuals.

AB 1450, by Assemblyman Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, would prohibit employers from turning away applicants because they are unemployed, and states that employment status cannot used as consideration during the application, hiring and employment process.

There have been many attempts to add to the protected classifications including weight, and those living in areas of “general economic distress.”

Employers now face crimes of every imaginable kind because of California’s vast overreach into the workplace.  Any state agency investigator, whether from OSHA, Cal EPA, water resources, air resources, immigration, the fire marshall, parking enforcement, and all of the taxing agencies, can make an unannounced visit to employers, and demand to see documentation regarding the agency, or make a site visit to look for violations.

And on any given day, there isn’t an employer in the state who wouldn’t be cited for some random violation.

The state is now trying to look into the hearts of Human Resource managers to determine if they are discriminating against the unemployed.

When I was a HR manager, I coached my manufacturing managers to be wary of job applicants who might be government plants looking for ADA violators, discrimination cases, employment law violations, and the like. There are lawyers who also send fake applicants on job interviews, looking for employers to set up and sue.

In the manufacturing company in which I worked, a classified advertisement for a job often netted many applicants. But I was suspicious if a disabled person applied for a very physically demanding job. I was suspicious if a woman applied for a physical or dirty job historically held by strong, burley men. And, I was most suspicious of age discrimination cases – when someone nearing retirement applied for an entry-level job, or something they were grossly overqualified for.

This is what California’s ridiculous employment and discrimination laws have done to employers.

Now employers will have to be on the lookout for the unemployed – what an oxymoron.

Unfortunately, many of the habitually unemployed are unemployable. They don’t want a full-time job. But the Employment Development Department and CalWorks programs require them occasionally to prove they are actively looking for work.

If AB 1450 passes, those same people will be able to claim they were discriminated against if they are not offered the job.

Private sector employers tend to hire based on need, and do not make hiring decisions based on gender, race or other categories. It’s only the government which hires based on gender, sexual orientation, race, religion or veteran status. And it’s only the government which is always exempt from its own laws.

This bill is proof that California needs a part-time Legislature. Instead of working, California employers spend more than half of their time fending off the thousands of bad laws cooked up by a mostly irrelevant, tainted and mercenary state Legislature.

MAR. 22, 2012

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/03/22/unemployed-protected-from-employers/

MARCH 22, 2012

By KATY GRIMES

crossposted at CalWatchdog.com

A visit to California from Lord Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, promised to be full of his telltale wit, knowledge and controversy, as well as plenty of science. Lord Monckton did not disappoint.

As California is on the verge of its first cap-and-trade carbon auction, Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, invited Lord Monckton to address the Legislature, and arranged for him to make several presentations throughout California over the next few days.

Grove sent out invitations to each of the 120 state legislators, but only a handful of Republicans accepted to participate in the hearing. And only one Democrat attended the hearing — Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood.

Monckton’s message is important as well as scientific: Most climate change science is bogus, and California can and should stop the quest for ending climate change on our own before the state’s economy is completely destroyed.  Monckton has consulted many governments around the world about climate change.

Mockton, together with Tom Tanton, a renewable energy expert and special consultant to the energy and technology industries, testified to a packed room in a special legislative hearing Wednesday on climate change and carbon trade. Tanton and Monckton gave an even more detailed presentation at an event later that evening.

New California Tax Scheme

I’ve had to sit through several years of legislative hearings lacking in science, facts and detail about the sources of climate change. After that, Monckton’s presentation about how the global warming hysteria began, how the data and science was altered and why they hysteria continues was fascinating and refreshing.

As California prepares for its first cap-and trade-auction in August, taxpayers and utility customers should all be concerned and not worry about being called “deniers.”

As I wrote in California Remedy For Eco-Guilt about AB 32′s implementation and upcoming cap-and-trade auctions, ”Instead of providing affirmative plans to accomplish this feat, and answers to legislators’ questions, it became abundantly clear that no one in the state has a handle on the implementation of AB 32, the Global Warming Solution Act of 2006, or the potential repercussions from the vast law.”

Most notably, Tanton and Monckton warned taxpayers that, because Gov. Jerry Brown decided to monetize CO2 carbon emissions, and plans to tax utility customers, business owners and taxpayers for the emissions, the state stands to take in an extra $1 billion in revenues.

The new revenue stream is not new money coming into the state, but an additional $1 billion from the same old sources – businesses, manufacturers, utility customers, homeowners, property owners, automobile owners and taxpayers.

Overall, if California continues down the road of selling and trading carbon emission credits, it will cost the state $450 billion by 2020. Monckton found that even with $450 billion spent, the impact to curb total global emissions will be closde to nil – just 0.4 percent will have been abated.

Just the Science, Please

Monkton went through an elaborate presentation and showed the data, charts and graphs originally used by the United Nation International Panel on Climate Change, when it concluded that man-made global warming must be stopped. But Monckton found that the original science and data had been altered in order to further the agenda, and force the West to comply with the international rules. Monckton also showed the altered data, and the changes were staggering and obvious.

Tanton said that California is already the third best state in the United States in the carbon intensity of our economy. The United States is four times better than China, and better than the average of all other countries.

Even with this information, Tanton warned that cap-and-trade is going to come at a very high cost to Californians. Families will be forced to pay thousands of dollars more out of their budgets each year, and the state will lose more than 100,000 more jobs in 2012 – on top of the 650,000 manufacturing jobs lost since AB 32 was made law.

By 2020, California stands to lose more than 1 million more jobs, just because of the state’s climate change laws.

“This state grew because of manufacturing,” said Sen. Wright. “If we want a policy of no manufacturing, the we should tell the rest of the manufacturers, instead of bleeding them dry – tell them ‘you should get out.’”

A 2011 Rasmussen poll found that 69 per cent of 1,000 respondents believed it at least “somewhat likely” that climate scientists had falsified their research data to support the case for catastrophic human-caused global warming. Forty per cent of respondents said falsification of research data was “very likely.” Only 22 percent  responded that they were sure that climate scientists had not falsified data.

California Over-Regulation

California already suffers from over-regulation. Monckton and Tanton addressed California’s 40-year ban on most offshore drilling, despite the 15 billion barrels of oil available. Their concern, besides the decisions made on faulty and fraudulent science, is that California already suffers from record unemployment, high taxes and a $6 billion deficit, and is facing a potential unfunded pension meltdown.

According to Monckton and Tanton, adding more taxes onto the backs of business owners and utility customers will only cause the wealthy and more employers to flee California.

“Rich Californians are fleeing the state, taking their jobs with them,” said Monckton. “Intel says it will never build another plant here; Globalstar, Trizetto, and eEye fled in just one month; Boeing, Toyota, Apple, Facebook, and DirecTV have all fled,” said Monckton, referring to expansions by those companies, al though some of their headquarters remain here. “The wagons are heading east.”

Also Read: Democrats in the Legislature Chicken Out of Climate Debate With Lord Monckton

FEB. 22, 2012

By KATY GRIMES 

CalWatchdog

According to legislators, teenage boys in California are violent. Therefore, only an Assembly resolution can save the unsuspecting teenage girls from the inevitable violence.

February 2012 has been dubbed “Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.” And Assemblyman Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, has come to the rescue with ACR 101, to “encourage all Californians to observe Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month with appropriate programs and activities that raise awareness about teen dating violence and promote healthy teen relationships in their communities.”

Never fear, the State Legislature is here.

“It’s a growing problem,” said Lara, the author of ACR 101, during Tuesday’s Assembly session.

But not all legislators agree with the resolution.

In fact, some have said that much of the teen bullying and violence is hyped.

Legislating Peaceful Relationships

Assemblyman Chris Norby, R-Fullerton, wasn’t buying it, and called Lara out. “Violence among teens is down 50 percent since 1995,” Norby said on the floor of the Assembly Tuesday.

Norby said that adding more school programs to deal with teen violence adds no academic value, and does nothing other than to “stigmatize what often is the give-and-take in relationships.”

“There is no outbreak of violence, no epidemic,” Norby added.

Norby addressed the fallacy of the resolution which, according to Lara, is a conduit for “additional resources for training teens.”

Teen Violence Resources

One of the biggest promoters of teen violence programs is the California Adolescent  Health Collaborative, which receives funding from the Maternal, Child and Adolescent Health Program, Center for Family Health, California Department of Public Health, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U. S. Department of Justice.

The California Adolescent Health Collaborative, “a project of the Public Health Institute, is a public-private statewide coalition of individuals and organizations that works to increase understanding and support of adolescent health and well-being in California,” the website states.

“Over the years, the CAHC has received support from the California Family Health Council, the California Wellness Foundation, the Sierra Health Foundation, Lucile Packard Foundation, MCAH Program, California Department of Public Health, Compton Foundation, McKesson, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, and the California Endowment.”

A major part of what CAHC does is health related. CAHC also hosts the California Adolescent Sexual Health Work Group 2008 Data for California Adolescent Births, AIDS, STD.

The list of health-related subjects however, are all issues that are traditionally parental responsibilities, and are highly suspect as publicly funded programs in public schools and publicly funded health centers:

Latino adolescents in California’s rural counties: a snapshot of health status

Impact of Social Media on Adolescent Behavioral Health in California

Promoting the Sexual and Reproductive Health of Adolescents in Foster Care

Integrating Behavioral Health and Primary Care for Youth and Young Adults: Recommendations and Resources for Providers in California and Beyond

Teen Dating Violence: Keeping California Adolescents Safe in Their Relationships

Mental Health in Adolescence: A Critical Time for Prevention & Early Intervention

Adolescent Health Brief: Nutrition and Physical Activity

Barriers to Care: Implications of Requiring Parental Involvement for California Minors Seeking Abortions

California Youth Need School-Based Health Centers!

Are you Talking with your Teen?

Adolescent Oral Health Fact Sheet

More Programs

ACR 101 states that it would “encourage all Californians to observe Teen Dating Violence Awareness and  Prevention Month with appropriate programs and activities that raise awareness about teen dating violence and promote healthy teen relationships in their communities.”

The bill was light on analysis, but did include “data” from the Liz Claiborne 2009 Parent/Teen Dating Violence Poll, which found “approximately one in three adolescent girls in the United States is a victim of physical, emotional, or verbal abuse from a dating partner, a figure that far exceeds victimization rates for other types of violence affecting youth.”

But the Teen Dating and Violence poll,  ”Teen Dating Abuse Report 2009: Impact of the Economy and Parent/Teen Dialogue on Dating Relationships and Abuse,” only led to a website called “Love is Not Abuse.” The study, supposedly conducted byTeen Research Unlimited,  also led nowhere. I can’t find any poll, and none of their 2009 news or press releases include a report on teen dating abuse.

Locating actual data on teen violence is a big problem. The CAHC website data page came up empty, with a “page not found” message. The National Institute of Justice, the federal organization that disseminates information, training and ”data,” came up weak as well. There was plenty of narrative about the issues, but no identifiable data.

The National Youth Violence Prevention Center is just as fuzzy, with data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in a program called STRYVE – “striving to reduce youth violence everywhere.”

The CAHC offers the following topics for educators: Minor Consent and Confidentiality, Adolescent Relationship Abuse, Sexual and Reproductive Health of Youth in Foster Care, Positive Youth Development, Adolescent Development, Core Competencies for Providers of Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health, and Integrating Behavioral Health into Primary Care.

It appears that Norby is right. While any violence between dating teenagers is too much, a cottage industry was created under the guise of a “public/private partnership” using teen violance as the catch-all subject.  ”Public/private” is always the code words for ways for government to spend taxpayer funds on non-essential services.

The disclaimer on the STRYVE website explains everything: “Disclaimer: STRYVE, a youth violence prevention initiative, provides this information as a public service only. The views and information provided about and in the content available through this website, www.safeyouth.gov, do not necessarily represent the official views of the U.S. government, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or STRYVE.”

According to Norby, with California public school students dipping to the lowest performance in the country, non-academic programs have “doubtful academic value.”