In Sacramento, liberal politicians have a history of dismissing logic as something that merely gets in the way of the truth. As Vice Chair of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee I see have seen my fair share of these bills. It's clear this year is no different as legislation based on skewed facts and faulty science work their way through the Legislature.

The latest piece of "fact-based" legislation to clear the Environmental Quality Committee is Senate Bill 1212 by Senator Mark Leno. The bill would require cell phone manufacturers to place warning labels about the "specific absorption rate" (SAR), otherwise known as radio frequency radiation, on all cell phone devices sold in California. These labels would appear on the outside of cell phone packaging and inside the instruction manual.

Supporters of SB 1212 believe that a customer has a right to know the level of radio frequency in their cell phone so they can make an informed purchasing decision. Supposedly, this information is important because of the small possibility that cell phones could have a negative impact public health. However, there are no facts to back that idea up.

When it comes to politics, there's never a dull moment in California. And when it comes to California, there's never a shortage of kooky political ideas.

In the past week alone, we learned that in November California voters will decide if pot should be legal in our state. Then there's the proposal by one legislator to ban fast food restaurants from selling Happy Meals in an effort to sway kids to choose tofu and yogurt over cheeseburgers and fries.

One thing is clear: Government priorities have run amuck.

Kids do it when they’re in trouble. Husbands do it when they want to watch a game instead of doing chores. Dogs do it when they bring you a toy after they’ve had an “accident.” Even army generals do it when they want to disguise their retreat or find a devious way to win. And, according to Machiavelli, so do politicians.

That’s what is happening with the California Forward budget reform proposals introduced by Democrat legislative leaders - they are a distraction to facilitate deception.

Maybe we should call the proposal a diversion - a game or smokescreen - instead of reform. The real goal of this effort is to allow Democrats to raise taxes with a majority vote and eliminate the power Republicans have to stop their overspending.

The proposed “reforms” are riddled with loopholes that will render them useless, but the major hole in budget policy - the reduced vote count to raise taxes - will allow Democrats to carry on with their drunken spending barrier free--despite what voters have said they want in every poll taken since Proposition 13 was passed in 1978.

Senate Bill 810 has unfortunately passed the Senate yesterday on a 22-14 party-line vote.

The measure would create a single-payer, government-controlled health care plan for Californians. The same government that has mismanaged your money now wants to control your health care.

Does anybody believe a state that bleeds red year-after-year could possibly control the costs of health care?

As I said on the Senate floor: This plan is to the Left and radical of ObamaCare. It’s this type of big-government idea that caused an earthquake of an election in Massachusetts in recent weeks. Yet, my liberal colleagues in Sacramento don’t seem to care about the needs or concerns of the people or the state of our economy.

Remember the basic premise of Robin Hood? The rich king and his fellow nobles were exploiting the poor through excessive taxation and oppressive application of the laws of the land.

Robin Hood and his merry men embarked on a novel scheme to steal from the rich and redistribute the loot to the poor through a variety of clever means. Their outlaw hideouts were deep in the forests of England and their “uniform” was green in order to mask themselves most effectively.

Green is certainly the in vogue color, and many in the environmental movement would love to have the general public believe that the Robin Hood philosophy of redistributing income from rich to poor is their modus operandi too.

Perhaps some simple comparing and contrasting would allow us to determine whether this claim stands up to any scrutiny.

Although the 2009 budget drama has subsided, the 2010 budget is just around the corner. It promises to be no less dramatic. While legislators work to break the snowballing budget cycle, they should consider new innovations such as privatization of some California infrastructure and functions.

For proof of success, look no further than The Reason Foundation’s recent findings in its Annual Privatization Report, which presents alternatives to the age-old battle over whether to raise taxes or cut spending. Instead, governments have the opportunity to reduce liabilities while modernizing and streamlining procurement practices, creating more transparent and simplified processes, and encouraging a new level of competitiveness among local businesses.

While California has barely dipped its toe into privatizing waters, many other states have jumped in with both feet.

One good example is West Virginia, whose privatization of its workers’ compensation insurance program. The move was considered a success in terms of handling of claims, lowering rates, and reducing the state’s liabilities.

Yesterday, the California Senate Democrats passed Assembly Bill 14xxx with the intent to reform California’s prison system and save $1.2 billion along the way. While these are good intentions, what this dangerous measure really does is empower felons while risking the safety of California citizens.  

Elements of the bill include releasing inmates early from prison through a variety of different means including good time credits for just sitting in a prison cell; rewarding thieves for stealing vehicles valued under $2,500; and creating a public safety commission that would require membership of a felon.  

Early release is not the answer and it’s doubtful that it will lead to real savings. First of all, what kind of message are we sending to criminals when the Legislature approves early release of felons before they have served their time?  

Would you trust your local baker to tune your car? Would you go to your barber for a physical?  Probably not.  

Normal people tend to seek out experts for needed services or advice. But not in Sacramento where it appears some politicians either fancy themselves as scientific experts – whether they have a science background or not – or they seek the advice from questionable sources in their push for extremist policies that adversely affect the everyday lives of Californians.  

Senate Bill 797 (authored by Los Angeles Senators Fran Pavley and Carole Liu) exemplifies knee-jerk legislation based on irrational fear rather than sound scientific judgment. The measure would place a ban on the use of bisphenol A (BPA) for products designed for infants and toddlers. The radical environmental lobby sponsoring the bill insists that BPA must be banned because the “science” proves its danger to humans.  

California stands on the verge of ushering in an environmental program which aims to change the face of waste production standards. Several bills currently in the California Legislature propose to codify the European concept of Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) , which has so far been a voluntary practice. It is a strategy which promotes the integration of environmental costs associated with a product throughout its lifecycle into the market price of the product. In other words, b efore the manufacturing of a product begins, EPR suggests that the manufacturer should know how the waste created by the production process should be treated, as well as how the product should be taken care of once discarded. In this way, state regulators would create a system that would burden businesses with “cradle to cradle” recycling systems designed, financed, and managed by the producers themselves.

First conceived in Sweden, then used in Germany, EPR has spread across Europe and is slowly entering the American consciousness. Environmental activists hope that new California mandates will be established for the rest of the country to follow. EPR has the potential to combine environmental efforts such as greenhouse gas emissions implementation, landfill diversion quotas, the green chemistry initiative, to name just a few, that will hurt the state’s economy and result in higher prices, fewer choices, and increased unemployment.

Democrat Leaders who do not believe Californians are fleeing the Golden State in droves need to look no farther than Sacramento, the seat of California’s state government. A recent Sacramento Bee article cites a reverse migration to the Mid-west. This marks a stunning reversal of the historical trend of migration into California—especially during the Dust Bowl that sent hundreds of thousands of Midwesterners west toward the Golden State.

During the Dust Bowl, people left states like Texas, Arkansas, and Oklahoma because a drought left the once fertile soil barren and bone-dry. The livelihoods of the farmers shriveled with the crops, and families found themselves in destitution. They sought the greener pastures of California. But where the Dust Bowl of the Great Depression sent a massive migration of Midwesterners to California, the current economic hardship is now driving residents back to the Midwest.