Author: George Runner

The budget recently proposed by Governor Jerry Brown contains difficult, but much-needed spending cuts. It more or less seeks to balance revenues with expenses—a challenging task for a state confronting a $25.4 billion budget gap.

That being said, Brown’s budget is foolish. Why? Because it does nothing to improve California’s dismal jobs climate. Instead it would make California even less competitive in the battle for jobs.

For six straight years, California has ranked dead last in an annual survey asking CEOs which state is the best for business. A growing number of businesses are fleeing the state or choosing to expand elsewhere. It should come as no surprise that California’s double digit unemployment rate continues to be among the worst in the nation. We are losing the battle for jobs.

As jobs go, so go state revenues. But most policymakers and academics in Sacramento don’t seem to understand that in order to have revenues, we need a healthy, vibrant economy that creates well-paying jobs for Californians. Tax hikes only serve to worsen California’s long-term budget woes. Voters instinctively understand this, which is why they’ve rejected every proposed tax increase on the state’s ballot since 2004.

Remember the federal "economic stimulus" bill that was supposed to
curtail job losses and prevent our economy from failing?

Well, despite
the rosy assurances from President Obama and Congress, unemployment
remains high and the economy is teetering on the verge of a double-dip
recession. The only thing that appears to be "stimulated" is the
national debt, which is now a jaw-dropping – and record high – $13.2
trillion.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently laid out a
sobering potential future for America as part of its long-term budget
outlook, in which the national debt reaches 90 percent of Gross
Domestic Product by 2020. Aggravated by increasingly higher interest on
increasingly higher debt, that figure rises to 180 percent by 2035,
leading to a fiscal crisis that destabilizes the national economy.

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?