The Gang of Eight Immigration Reform (G8) bill is in full-throated national debate.

Breitbart trumpets, “The Wheels Are Coming Off the Bill” while shrieking about “Marco-Phones.” Mark Levin is thumbs down after interviewing Marco Rubio.  Ann Coulter calls Rubio a “liar.” Sessions shouts at Schumer in a hearing.  Ted Cruz, taking on Rubio mano a mano for 2016, insults Feinstein and plays gotcha with DHS head Napolitano. Today, Cruz released the trial balloons.

But Rand Paul— against a new pathway— supports broad reform while Paul Ryan champions the bill (both on the 2016 short list), the Cato Institute supports and Orrin Hatch came out thumbs up, Grover Norquist is a cheerleader and Sean Hannity says, “create a pathway.”  The national GOP is divided, but the bill may stall in the Tea Party House.

This is not exactly a response to David Salaverry’s three part Fox & Hound’s series on California high speed rail (HSR), it is hard to respond to someone who argues three sides of an issue.  Salaverry emphasized the “political” aspects of the issue in all three of his contributions.  My comments will be more focused on the economic and equity policy issues which make HSR the worst investment California taxpayers will ever make.

Part One below highlights issues about funding, costs and benefits of the proposal.  Part Two will focus on commitments and representations previously made about the rail proposal by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) which are not achievable under the present plan.

In February 2012 Governor Jerry Brown said this about HSR:

Two more state legislators that participated in a spring break trip to Cuba with an influential Sacramento lobbyist have been identified. Assembly Majority Leader Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Assembly member Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, have confirmed through their offices that they spent the spring holiday out of the country with registered lobbyist Darius Anderson.

“I visited Cuba as a participant in a cultural and arts exchange trip organized by the non-profit, Californians Building Bridges, between March 22nd and 27th,” Mitchell wrote in an email to CalWatchdog.com.  “My travel and lodgings were entirely paid for with private funds. I took the opportunity to observe instances of the country’s unique human services delivery systems, arts and culture.”

Given California’s chronic problems, it’s hard to imagine anyone sees our state as a model—but it’s clear the Obama administration does. And to make matters worse, President Obama is now using schemes from California’s playbook in his bid to impose our failures on the rest of the nation.

Much like Sacramento, Washington is mired in gridlock. The budget never really gets done, and politicians seem to stumble from one crisis to the next. Like California Governor Jerry Brown, President Obama lacks the ability to forge true bipartisan consensus to solve problems.

Two weeks ago – a week that was one of the worst in recent American history, the small town of West, Texas – about 20 miles north of Waco, was devastated when a fertilizer plant exploded – killing 15, wounding dozens and flattening buildings in the surrounding area.

In response, last week The Sacramento Bee ran an editorial cartoon by Jack Ohman depicting Texas Gov. Rick Perry exclaiming ‘Business is Booming in Texas’ beside an image of a fiery explosion. You can see the cartoon here.

The LA Times just reported, again, on the demise of the idea of a rainy day fund. Yes, we have a reserve fund (actually multiple reserve funds) on the books, but they never have any real money in them.

The Times story offers a detailed accounting of the reasons we don’t have a fund, including the very good reason that it makes more sense to pay off some debts before you put money in reserve.

But as in most discussions of the California budget, the discussion here is too small. Proposals to put money into rainy day funds usually involve a paltry amount of funds, by California budget standards — $1 or $2 billion, on an overall budget of north of $140 billion. That’s well less than 2 percent.

On the heels of the Governor’s successful Trade and Investment Mission to China, it’s important to take note of the major accomplishments made that will expand opportunities for California businesses and benefit our economy.  Some of these included opening California’s first foreign trade and investment office since 2003 and having a number of meetings to strengthen ties between California and China.

Over the course of this mission, the Governor, the California business delegation members and Chinese officials and business leaders discussed the mutual benefits of investment and export in a wide range of sectors.  One of the areas that is of greatest importance to California is tourism.  Our state is a global destination, particularly to Chinese travelers. That’s one reason why continuing to attract Chinese visitors to California is so important.

If you have never heard of the roughly 2,000 member North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians, than I can assure you that you are not a member of the State Legislature.   Last year Governor Brown signed a gaming compact with this tribe, which is up for ratification by the legislature in-short order.

In March of 2000, voters by nearly a two-thirds margin approved Prop. 1A.  In doing so voters passed an initiative which, according to the Attorney General’s summary: “Modifies existing gambling prohibitions to authorize Governor to negotiate compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes, subject to legislative ratification, for operation of slot machines, lottery games, and banking and percentage card games on Indian lands.”

It’s still the first half of 2013, and we already have a pretty good idea who the most important political candidate of next year’s California statewide elections will be.

It’s not Governor Brown. Or any of the other bigger names on down-ballot races running for re-election. Indeed, it’s a pretty safe bet that the most important candidate of 2014 won’t win.

His name is Pete Peterson, and he’s a Republican running for California Secretary of State. But what’s intriguing about Peterson – and why I hope that he gets a ton of public and media attention – is that he represents one of the most powerful ideas in California, and in governance circles.

If there’s one thing the debate over public employees’ pensions has taught us, it’s that California needs to invest more in mathematics instruction in its public schools.

When Stanford professors who receive special interest funding for their work and self-proclaimed  ”taxpayer” organizations bankrolled by anti-union groups  wag their finger at an an investment system that yields 8 percent annual returns, it’s clear there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the numbers.