Author: Jon Coupal

California is circling the drain and the news keeps getting worse.

With unemployment at 12.4 percent – 2,269,948 people without jobs – it should come as no surprise that the state is upside down in its unemployment insurance fund. The deficit is expected to reach $10.3 billion by the end of the year as the state borrows $40 million dollars a day from the federal government to provide assistance to jobless workers. California must make an interest payment $362 million to the federal government next September. It’s one more obligation that leaves less money for programs like education, laws enforcement and transportation.

Then there is the latest projection from the Legislative Analyst’s Office showing the state with a budget deficit of $25.4 billion.

Just last month, when, with self congratulatory rhetoric, lawmakers concluded the budget for this year, it was obvious to all that it was a sham. I wrote at the time that only those “who had just put their life savings into Florida swampland,” would believe the rosy projections on which the budget was balanced.

Rosy Projections is a powerful player in state government, but when I asked around the Capitol for directions to her office, no one could help me. And I couldn’t find a listing for Ms. Projections in any of the political directories in Sacramento, either.

Still we know Rosy exists, because her fingerprints are all over the state budget.

Let’s see, the budget agreement includes the expectation that the federal government — out of the goodness of its heart — will chip in $5.3 billion dollars to shore up Californians’ profligate spending. Certainly that is proof of Rosy’s influence. And then there are the estimates of future revenue that would only be believed by someone who had just put their life savings into Florida swampland. Surely Rosy had a hand in this, too.

Proposition 25 is the latest weapon against Proposition 13, but backers don’t want voters to know it.

Statewide polls taken in recent years consistently show Proposition 13
to be as popular as it was 32 years ago when it passed with nearly
two-thirds of the vote. While the general public supports the landmark
measure with its limitation on property tax increases and requirement
of a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to increase state taxes,
politicians and government employee union leaders continue to see
Proposition 13 as a barrier to their draining every dime from taxpayers.

Writing about the campaign to pass Proposition 13, the measure’s
author, Howard Jarvis, wrote, "Virtually all of the howlers against
Proposition 13 had their noses buried deeply in the public trough. They
were on a gravy train provided by the taxpayers, and they wanted to
ride that train at the taxpayers’ expense until they reached the
promised land of exorbitant pensions for the rest of their lives."

The passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 changed the political landscape
both within California and nationally.  Thirty-two years after its
passage, candidates for governor still vie to convince voters that they
are the strongest supporters of this landmark law.  Undoubtedly, this
would make Prop 13 author Howard Jarvis very happy.

Ironically, 1978 was also the last time Jerry Brown ran for governor.  
The "boy governor" was running for a second term against then Attorney
General Evelle Younger.  The overwhelming 65% vote for Proposition 13
in the primary election spurred both candidates to scramble to be
identified with this big winner.

Brown, who had originally opposed the measure, and Younger, who had
given only lukewarm support, both approached Howard Jarvis asking him
to cut television spots on their behalf.

Ken Lay, the former CEO of Enron, loved the idea of a cap-and-trade program for carbon dioxide.  Ken Lay, a Greenie?  Of course.  He was chasing green his whole life.  Cap-and-trade, according to the felonious Mr. Lay, would "do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative."

Enron brass may have been criminals, but they were smart.  Enron made their money trading stuff, and the mother-of-all markets is for carbon dioxide.  Yup, the very stuff that we all exhale with every breath and that is generated by cars, air conditioners, stoves, washing machines, livestock  . . .  just about every human endeavor that involves energy.

But there is a big problem trying to trade in a commodity for which there is no natural market.  You see, the law now is that Americans do not need a permit to breath.  But if crafty market manipulators were somehow able to get government to create such a market, and if those same crafty capitalists could control that market, they would become very, very wealthy.

Nearly one month into the new fiscal year that began on July 1, there
is growing concern that Democrat leaders will attempt an end-run around
the Proposition 13 requirement that tax increases must be approved with
a two-thirds vote of the Legislature.

The state faces a $19 billion budget deficit, but instead of cutting
waste and out-of-control spending, Democrats are looking for schemes to
increase taxes with a simple majority vote.

This wouldn’t be the first time the Democrats have tried an end-run
around the state Constitution. In January 2009, they tried to pass
billions in tax increases with a majority vote. The Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit against these unconstitutional
tax increases, and almost immediately the Governor announced he would
veto the plan.

The current NFL champions are the New Orleans Saints.  But thirty
years ago, they were horrible.  The team’s play was so embarrassing
that when a local sportscaster recommended fans wear bags over their
heads at home games, thousands responded.  The bag-head protesters
became known as the "Aints." The practice of fans wearing bags to
express discontent with  especially poor performing sports teams has
now become a custom  throughout the United States.

If
the California Legislature were a professional sports franchise,
Californians would be reaching for their bags.  They would, that is,
if  they could afford to pay the proposed "bag tax."

That’s
right; our embarrassing Legislature is working on another way  to cost
average citizens money.  Assembly Bill 1998 would punish  consumers by
banning lightweight, convenient plastic grocery bags —  often reused
at home as trash bags and to carry lunches to school and  work — and
require grocers to offer paper bags at a charge of a least a  nickel.
The bill allows the charge to go higher. Plastic
bag ban backers say the bag "fee" is not a tax, because  shoppers can
bring their own bags and avoid paying.  However, San  Francisco, which
has a similar ordinance, has not seen a significant  increase in
reusable bags, just more consumers using paper bags,  according to the
California Grocers Association.

Imagine
walking through a California public school and hearing the voices of
students singing "I am special" to the tune of "Frere Jacques."  One
might look through the classroom window expecting to see kindergartners
about to enjoy Graham crackers and milk — or perhaps a more
politically correct snack.

Now back to real life, where singing choruses of self-affirming music,
such as "I Am Special" is part of the curriculum in a college course
called "Self Esteem" taught at CSU Fresno.

Students preferring to attend UCLA can enroll in a class on electronic
dance music that explores "the political and cultural implications of
the relentless hedonism of the dance floor."   And at UC Berkeley, they
can take a course entitled, "Sex Change City: Theorizing History in
Genderqueer San Francisco" where they learn all about "the regulation
of gender-variant practices in public space by San Francisco’s
Anglo-European elites."

It generates few headlines, so many taxpayers are unaware that local
governments continue to pump millions of dollars of tax increments —
property tax revenue usually withheld from schools and other essential
services — to fund pet projects that may not be in the public
interest. This is all done under the guise of "Community
Redevelopment."   

One of the most common misuses of redevelopment funds is to bribe
businesses, like auto malls or big box stores, to relocate in a
particular community.   The result is often a bidding war between
cities, each trying to outdo the others to provide the most generous
subsidies and tax breaks to land a favored business.  Reforms enacted
in 1994 which permit tax sharing designed to address this problem have
only been partially successful.

It is hard to find a taxpayer who thinks that government should be in
the business of using taxpayer dollars to pick winners and losers in
the private sector economy, and this is why local officials try to
operate their redevelopment schemes with as little notice as possible.
However, when the deals go sour, it is hard to keep these expensive
failures under wraps.