Author: Joel Fox

Jumping ahead here, but what happens to Abel Maldonado if the state senate and assembly do not confirm him as Lt. Governor? Almost assuredly, he follows the trail blazed by Dan Lungren and runs statewide waving the senate rejection as a bloody shirt.

I read two articles over the weekend that referred to Dan Lungren’s rejected nomination to become state treasurer in 1987. Garry South’s piece in the L.A. Times spoke mostly about nominees who were confirmed to fill state offices but were turned out by voters in the next election. Cathleen Decker, also in the Times, discussed the Latino angle of the Maldonado nomination and how Maldonado might be treated differently than Lungren.

Since I couldn’t get tickets to the Jay Leno Show, I attended the Governor’s press conference announcing his pick of Senator Abel Maldonado to fill the empty Lieutenant Governor’s chair.

The event was held at Ruben Salazar Park in East L.A. in front of a huge Latino-themed wall mural by artist Paul Botello titled: The Wall that Speaks, Sings and Shouts.

The first question asked about the failed attempt to qualify the recall of Assemblyman Anthony Adams for the ballot is: How could that happen?!

Given the money raised to support the effort, the professional signature gatherers involved, constant agitation from Southern California talk radio hosts, and anger from many in the electorate to the tax increases Adams supported after signing a no-tax increase pledge, many experts are puzzled over the failure to secure the necessary signatures in Adams district, which spans Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen revealed on Friday that less than fifty percent of the randomly selected signatures were valid. The test results indicated the measure would not qualify and no full count was required.

Flashreport’s Jon Fleischman speculated on what might have happened in his weekend column. Could fraud be involved? Or an unlucky draw of random signatures?

I’m no legal scholar, but Attorney General Jerry Brown’s decision yesterday to allow for an 18 percent salary cut for the state’s lawmakers and constitutional officers was a political no-brainer. The budget is in woeful deficit, unemployment is at record levels, public employees are on furlough – of course, the state lawmakers must share the pain.

The fact that legislators tried to avoid the pay cut during these difficult times separates them even further from average citizens. Legislators claim their fingerprints are not on the request seeking the opinion on the legality of the cuts. The administrators of the Senate and Assembly made the request to Brown. Right. And, I’m prepared to buy that bridge in Brooklyn.

The state’s independent pay commission authorized the cut in May. Commission chairman Charles Murray, in agreeing with the attorney general’s opinion, said on this issue, “We represent the average Californian.”

He’s right. The proof is the result of the only ballot measure that passed at the May special election.

Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor officially let all Californians know what a lot of insiders were whispering about for months. The budget is already in the hole for this fiscal year and combined with the projected deficit for the next budget the state treasury is short a cool $21 billion.

Elsewhere on this site, Greg Lucas runs the state’s tab on a woeful future. And, John Wildermuth explores the difficulty in finding a solution.

The question at hand is who’s picking up the tab and how do we get to a solution?

Maybe Governor Schwarzenegger and his buddy, movie director James Cameron, can team up to make the equivalent of 21 blockbusters like Titanic, all in one year, each grossing $1 billion—and donate it all to the state.

We are talking 21 disaster movies here.

Before Californians rush off and try to fix what’s wrong with the state’s governance by calling for a new constitution, they ought to consider the simple solution of getting a bigger bang for the taxpayers’ dollar.

William Voegeli, a contributing editor to The Claremont Review of Books and a visiting scholar at Claremont McKenna College’s Salvatori Center, argues that California government has shortchanged its citizens by not providing good services for the amount of tax dollars the citizens provide.

In a lengthy comparison of government efficiency between the states of California and Texas in a City Journal article, Voegeli shows California’s government model fails to deliver for its citizens and overcharges dearly for that failure. Quoting the New Geography’s (and occasional Fox and Hounds contributor) Joel Kotkin, to make the point: “Twenty years ago, you could go to Texas, where they had very low taxes, and you would see the difference between there and California. Today, you go to Texas, the roads are no worse, the public schools are not great but are better than or equal to ours, and their universities are good.”

When he was governor three decades ago, Jerry Brown explained his political philosophy this way: “You paddle a little bit on the left, then you paddle a little bit on the right and you keep going straight down the middle.” As John Wildermuth pointed out here on Fox and Hounds,
Brown is not the first politician to try this system. Bill Clinton and friends called it triangulation. But, Brown’s description is more appealing and it makes it easier to examine what he has been up to lately.

Brown has been paddling hard on the right side of the canoe.

On Wednesday, Brown told LegalNewsline.com that over-regulation and too many laws were hurting California business.

"The whole framework of law is crucial for the operations of business enterprises," Brown said in the interview. "But when over prescriptive, it creates a huge and growing amount of overhead and it does seem that we’re reaching the point of counter-productivity." Brown indicated too many laws make it too easy to sue in California.

Curious items appear in the two initiatives filed by the California Teachers Association to split the property tax roll taxing commercial property more than residential property. Both measures contain a pair of tax cuts as part of the packages that, overall, would result in massive tax increases.

One item would double the homeowner’s exemption and increase the renter’s credit. The second would create an exemption for business personal property tax.

When the $7,000 homeowner exemption was created, the exemption was equivalent to about one-quarter of the average California home’s value. However, after years of housing inflation the $7,000 exemption has little impact. It saves $70 off the homeowners’ property tax bill. Increasing the homeowner exemption to offset inflation driven value is a good idea.

However, the CTA measures merely increases the savings to $140. Such a small amount does little to offset inflation built into home costs.

My grandmother answered a knock on the front door and was asked by the stranger at the door if she was the mother of Harry Fox. She fainted.

It was early 1945. The Second World War raged and my grandmother thought the man at the door was the one she had dreamed about too many times. In her dreams, a man came to the door to inform her that her son, who has served in the United States Army since 1941, had been killed in action. The dream was so real that when the stranger said her son’s name she believed her premonition had come to pass.

Had she known her son’s whereabouts she would have been right to be afraid. Tech/4 Harry Fox was serving with General George Patton’s Third Army at the Battle of the Bulge.

In December 1944, Adolph Hitler attempted his last, desperate offensive thrust, sweeping tanks and infantry into the frozen, hilly, dense Ardennes woods. Hitler’s armies and Panzers massed in total secrecy and surprised the Americans in an attempt to disrupt the allied front, capture Antwerp, and break apart the Anglo-American alliance.