A California Republican

The problem with the state legislature is that they won’t do their job. They are supposed to govern, to work as fiduciaries for the people who elected them. They need to be representatives, informed, and willing to do their jobs.

However, the state legislature never tackles the hard issues. Instead, they leave that to the ballot box.

The legislature doesn’t want to tackle water issues. They don’t want to decide on money to be spent, how to spend it, and where to store the water. Everyone there knows that we need more water storage. California has a population that has grown at a pace that has outstripped our water storage. Without a drastic change, there will not be water for all the things the population needs in less than 5 years. But what does the legislature do…..nothing. Instead they might try a bond, or something else at the ballot box through the initiative process.

The same thing is happening with budget reform. Instead of passing laws, or agreeing to various budgeting laws that are needed in order to reform the  process, they are taking the fight to the ballot box. Both sides are reasonably sure that the measures won’t pass. Here’s why - The Democrats and Republicans tied a raise in taxes to 1A - the only proposition likely to have any impact on future budgeting. In order to vote for budget reform - a soft spending cap  -you also have to vote to keep the sales tax increase for 3 more years.

Both sides knew that this measure would fail when they wrote it. The idea of a spending cap gave the Republicans cover for voting for the tax increases. However, no one was under any illusion that the measure will pass. Both sides knew that all sorts of interest groups will campaign against 1A.

However, the neglected to think of the people. Surely some people vote according to what they hear on TV and the radio, or what a well known group (like the CTA) tells them to do. But we all have free will, we can all vote how we want to.

This is a special election, so the turnout will be small. The various groups are counting on this. Only people who are really involved tend to turn out for special elections. Well, let us surprise everyone, let’s have a large turn out and pass 1A.

I am not for tax increases. I hate them. I think raising the sales tax was an irresponsible thing to do that allowed the legislature to avoid serious discussions about spending and taxing. However, I think that a spending cap is needed. Something is needed, and this is the best we are going to get. So let’s take it.

Vote yes on 1A.

One of the thing about stimulus plans is that they are no guarantee of success. In fact, they seem to be getting such good press that you could call it false hope.

Even with the downturn in the economy, California is still a $1.5 trillion dollar economy. Spending $85 billion (with $35 billion of that in tax breaks that is likely to not help the economy, but help famlies pay off debt or save), is like droping a teaspoon of water into a one gallon tank.  The numbers involved seem so large, that it is easy to mistake one large number $85 billion, as a number large enough to make a difference. But the simple math shows $85 billion won’t really matter.

California has lost over 2 million jobs. The Governor has said that, “So as you know, for every billion dollars that we spend on and invest in infrastructure, it creates another 18,000 new jobs, so this is why we are so eager to get this money from the federal government,” during a stop in Merced. So if we spend the planned infrastructure money - which is $10 billion, that makes 180,000 jobs.

180,000 is a small percentage of 2 million jobs lost. In fact, most of those jobs are going to the construction community. The construction community is hardest hit in terms of unemployment, but makes up less than 5% of California’s economy. So while the stimulus might be good for construction, it is not good enough for California jobs as a whole.

The stimulus package might work, or might not. Let’s not raise false hopes saying that it is the answer to the recession. The number clearly show it is not.

Spend now, or pay 1% more after Wednesday.

Wednesday is the fateful day, April 1, when the sales tax in California goes up by 1%. In the Bay Area, where sales tax is already higher than most other places in the state, that means sales tax will be over 9%. In most places it will raise the sales tax to 8%, or there abouts, from the 7% we are all familiar with now.

But if you shop now, and spend your money now, then you won’t be affected by the tax.

It may seem like not a big deal. However, a family of four (on average) spends $500.00 month on taxable groceries. That means they were paying $35.00 in sales tax. Now that will be $40.00. Over the course of 12 months, that $5 increase will cost $60.00. This can be a significant amount for people who are on a tight budget.

If you are buying big ticket items  - televisions, computers and cars, this increate will be even more apparent.

If the California government was looking for a way to stifle spending, they found it. Whenever people see prices go up, and income remain steady or drop, then sales go down.

A better plan would’ve been to extend a small sales tax to services. Instead of raising sales tax by 1%, they should’ve put a 1% sales tax on services. That would’ve brought in more money, and not placed increases on such items as food, clothing, school supplies and shoes.

Now, there are many things the California legisaltors do - and do well. They spend money, don’t pass budgets on time (or in some cases, at all), intrude on your right to live your life the way you want, make laws so convoluted you don’t know what to do, raise taxes and other things that benefit no one and cause many people problems.

One of the things California law makers do not do well is oversight. They have never met a program they didn’t like, specifically if that program spends money.

Now the lawmakers want oversight of federal stimulus funds, and want to “help” decide where it goes. They are also searching out pet projects that might need to be funded through the stimulus funds.

Legislators are also beginning to look at the stimulus funds, and whether there is a role for legislative oversight of the spending of the federal money. The subject was raised at a joint Utilities and Energy Committee hearing last week. Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, D-El Dorado Hills, said she is looking at whether there is a role for the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to play in supervising the spending of the federal money.

I have no problem with them if they are going to go through the same application process as everyone else. However, that is not what’s going to happen. Instead, they are going to muck this whole thing up.

If you think that the money would go to projects, or go to needy projects, you have your head in the sand. The California legislature is incapable of overseeing a project that needs to move quickly, rapidly and fairly across the state as a whole. It is possible that some areas are more depressed than others - like the inland  valley - and so need more money. That’s not going to happen if the legislature gets oversight.

Let’s leave this the way it is. The federal stimulus package isn’t a good idea. It is a bad idea that won’t work the way it is intended to. However, let’s not make it worse by allowing the legislature oversight. They cannot do anything they have responsibility for now - like getting permanent water storage in place to avoid droughts. Let’s not give them something else to do.

California is going to receive billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. The money is going to come into the state – approximately $85 billion – and must be spent quickly. About $50 billion will be federal funding for health care, education and other projects. The remainder, $35 billion, is expected to come into the state in the form of tax credits. 

Under the plan, individuals who make $75,000 or less will receive a $400 tax credit over the next year. The credit will begin within weeks, and will appear in qualifying taxpayers’ paychecks in the form of an increase in take-home pay, about $10-$20 per paycheck.   

The amount of money that is coming into the state, and the speed at which it must be spent, is creating a feeding frenzy in Sacramento. Local government, companies, state agencies and non-profits are all swooping in quickly to try and get a share of the money. 

The federal government wants the state to spend the money wisely, but it also wants the state to spend the money quickly. The two concepts do not always go together. 

The other problem is that applications for federal money must be submitted to the appropriate dispersing agency by March 31 – although the agencies will not make known that projects which are eligible for funding until March 30. 

So this creates a quickly-wisely problem.  

First of all, the state may not get all the money it is planning on. In fact, when tax payers are going to be given a credit, a wise bet to place is that the extra money will go to savings or paying down debt – not to spending. Paying down debt and saving is good for the family, and bad for the economy. What the economy needs is people to spend and buy with their money. Otherwise, the extra stimulus money doesn’t stimulate anything. 

Second, by asking states to spend the money wisely, but not giving the states and other organizations enough time to know what money they can apply for, things may get missed or the wrong application may be submitted. This money is being dispersed in a haphazard way that is systematic of the way money has been handed out under this Administration. First the banks got money without oversight, and now the states are going to get money, or not get money, without the time to make sure they are getting the right money for the right things. 

Lastly, quick spending doesn’t mean the best spending. Quick spending means projects get done that would otherwise be put on the backburner. It doesn’t mean that projects that need to get done will be getting done – some of those projects don’t qualify. In fact, in several counties, back roads are getting repaved because the main roads don’t qualify for stimulus money.  

There should be more time in this process. Spending the money quickly doesn’t ensure any sort of turnaround. Most economists say that even if the money was spend this fiscal year, it would be almost two more years before the effect of that money will be felt. Why? Because until times are more certain, people aren’t going to buy, people are going to save….and that doesn’t stimulate anything.

The President had a press conference last night. He stated that he is committed to bringing the United States out of a recession, and that his budget it tied to recovery.

I am not sure he has noticed, but the bailout package that was suppsoed to prevent more bank problems, spur lending, and start a reversal of the recession-trend has done nothing of the kind. Instead, the lending is not up. Most people cannot get loans. Housing prices are dirt-cheap right now and people cannot buy - because they cannot get loans. The TARP program didn’t help the people it was supposed to be helping. And an even greater problem is that there was no oversight of the TARP funds, and so banks don’t even want to say where they spent the money - if they can even tell.

So now the President wants to spend more money. He wants to deficit spend. If the President was going to spend money that the country had, and not spend us into debt in order to do what he wants to do, I might agree with it. I might not, but there is a higher chance that fiscal conservatives agree with spending when the spending doesn’t rely on deficit-spending tactics. I agree that sometimes the best way to pull out of a recession is to encourage spending. But that means to encourage spending by people - not by the government. The government cannot indefinately spend to support the economy. If that happens, the money will eventually dry up and then the consumers still won’t be spending.

The President stated that we have to “save and invest, not spend and debt.” Well Mr. President, that’s not what your budget and your plans are saying.

He did make some good points in his conference. There are some things that they are doing to help out people who are losing their homes and jobs - the extension of unemployment for additional weeks is a good start. But all the other reforms take money. There are ways to make the current programs run better, and free up more money. Why not start there before you try to overhaul the entire program? Unless you are overhauling the program so that it does more for less, what is the point in spending more on a program that isn’t working?

The President says medicare isn’t working. It isn’t efficient, and it isn’t providing what the patients need. Ok Mr. President, I agree. Medicare is a huge fiscal sinkhole. But how are you gonig to fix it? Spending more money on the same program doesn’t work. Medicare has proven it doesn’t work. So what are you going to do to fix it? The President answered that he will fix it by evaluating it, and that his advisors are already in that process. There have been any number of “evaluations” done on Medicare already. Take those, and come up with a plan.

I think that President Obama is getting stuck with a sinkhole. There is no way to come out of this recession looking good. He is spending waaaay too much, and trying to reform programs and spend on other things at the same time. I think he needs to sit down and evaluate priorities. He needs to focus, and get things done in one area of government at a time.

Good luck Mr. President. I wouldn’t want the job for all the gold in the land.

President Obama, on 60 Minutes last night, signaled that he was against putting a 90% tax on the bonuses that the financial executives in companies that were bailed out by the government recieved.

This is a move where he is going against the majority of America. He did this when he signed the first bailout bill, and now he is going against the will of America again. There has been a public outcry against these bonuses. Afterall, the banks are being run so badly that they needed federal taxpayer money to bail them out -  - - so what do the executives need bonuses for? Certainly not good management.

But Congress, and the President, knew that these bonuses would be paid. They were told so by the lawyers involved in crafting the bill. In the bailout bill, there was originally language that restricted the mnoey to not be used for bonuses. However, that language was taken out of the bill somewhere along the way.

It is absurd that we are spending so much taxpayer money to bail out banks, and even more absurd that they get to spend it on the bonuses. Trying to get the money back through taxes won’t work. That is simply being retroactive - there was already an option to prevent this from occuring, no one took it, and so now Congress is upset because of the public backlash.

The right time to be concerned is before you give the money, not afterwards.

This is an official message from the Mormon church that I thought would be worth repeating here - simply to clear the air on some of the larger misconceptions about Mormons, being spiritual and the role of a church (in government or not).

Like other large faith groups, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sometimes finds itself on the receiving end of attention from Hollywood or Broadway, television series or books, and the news media. Sometimes depictions of the Church and its people are quite accurate. Sometimes the images are false or play to stereotypes. Occasionally, they are in appallingly bad taste.

As Catholics, Jews and Muslims have known for centuries, such attention is inevitable once an institution or faith group reaches a size or prominence sufficient to attract notice. Yet Latter-day Saints – sometimes known as Mormons - still wonder whether and how they should respond when news or entertainment media insensitively trivialize or misrepresent sacred beliefs or practices.

Church members are about to face that question again. Before the first season of the HBO series Big Love aired more than two years ago, the show’s creators and HBO executives assured the Church that the series wouldn’t be about Mormons. However, Internet references to Big Love indicate that more and more Mormon themes are now being woven into the show and that the characters are often unsympathetic figures who come across as narrow and self-righteous. And according to TV Guide, it now seems the show’s writers are to depict what they understand to be sacred temple ceremonies.

Certainly Church members are offended when their most sacred practices are misrepresented or presented without context or understanding. Last week some Church members began e-mail chains calling for cancellations of subscriptions to AOL, which, like HBO, is owned by Time Warner. Certainly such a boycott by hundreds of thousands of computer-savvy Latter-day Saints could have an economic impact on the company. Individual Latter-day Saints have the right to take such actions if they choose.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as an institution does not call for boycotts. Such a step would simply generate the kind of controversy that the media loves and in the end would increase audiences for the series. As Elder M. Russell Ballard and Elder Robert D. Hales of the Council of the Twelve Apostles have both said recently, when expressing themselves in the public arena, Latter-day Saints should conduct themselves with dignity and thoughtfulness.

Not only is this the model that Jesus Christ taught and demonstrated in his own life, but it also reflects the reality of the strength and maturity of Church members today. As someone recently said, “This isn’t 1830, and there aren’t just six of us anymore.” In other words, with a global membership of thirteen and a half million there is no need to feel defensive when the Church is moving forward so rapidly. The Church’s strength is in its faithful members in 170-plus countries, and there is no evidence that extreme misrepresentations in the media that appeal only to a narrow audience have any long-term negative effect on the Church. 

Examples:

• During the Mitt Romney election campaign for the presidency of the United States, commentator Lawrence O’Donnell hurled abuse at the Church in a television moment that became known among many Church members as “the O’Donnell rant.” Today, his statements are remembered only as a testament to intolerance and ignorance. They had no effect on the Church that can be measured.
• When the comedy writers for South Park produced a gross portrayal of Church history, individual Church members no doubt felt uncomfortable. But once again it inflicted no perceptible or lasting damage to a church that is growing by at least a quarter of a million new members every year.
• When an independent film company produced a grossly distorted version of the Mountain Meadows Massacre two years ago, the Church ignored it. Perhaps partly as a result of that refusal to engender the controversy that the producers hoped for, the movie flopped at the box office and lost millions.
• In recent months, some gay activists have barraged the media with accusations about “hateful” attitudes of Latter-day Saints in supporting Proposition 8 in California, which maintained the traditional definition of marriage. They even organized a protest march around the Salt Lake Temple. Again, the Church has refused to be goaded into a Mormons versus gays battle and has simply stated its position in tones that are reasonable and respectful. Meanwhile, missionary work and Church members in California remain as robust and vibrant as ever, and support for the Church has come from many unexpected quarters — including some former critics and other churches.

Now comes another series of Big Love, and despite earlier assurances from HBO it once again blurs the distinctions between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the show’s fictional non-Mormon characters and their practices. Such things say much more about the insensitivities of writers, producers and TV executives than they say about Latter-day Saints.

If the Church allowed critics and opponents to choose the ground on which its battles are fought, it would risk being distracted from the focus and mission it has pursued successfully for nearly 180 years. Instead, the Church itself will determine its own course as it continues to preach the restored gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the world.

Surprise. Sen. Steinberg (D-Sacramento) is flip-flopping on his statement about career technical education.

Early in his tenure as State Senate President, Sen. Steinberg said that career technical educaiton training and classes was his number one priority. He said that California businesses didn’t have enough trained workers, and that he wanted to provide paths to work that wasn’t dependant on college for studens who didn’t want to go to college.

Then he negotiates a budget deal which cuts those programs by 20% over the next two years.

Yet he still finds the money to get other Senators to vote for the package - and give them lots of pork for their districts. It is unclear, still, how much pork is in the deal. But it is clear that Sen. Steinberg is cutting his number one priority, and provided pork to other senators. This is a flip-flop, and one that could cost him with the CTA (teacher’s union).

Hopefully Sen. Steinberg comes clean about what his number one priority really is - re-election.

The California state budget is $8 billion in the hole - already. It turns out that personal and business tax returns were not as high as the budget solution predicted.

Everyone could have told you this would be the case. In order to create a budget that works, you need to predict low. Then when the reciepts come in a little higher you can not make as many cuts or tax increases as possible. Yet, here we are again, hearing the message that California lawmakers cannot create a budget that is in balance.

Now we are hearing that we will not get as much federal stimulus money for the General Fund as was thought. That is no bad thing. Money that goes into the General Fund will be spent how the California lawmakers want, rather than on stimulus items. Federal stimulus money that is earmarked for projects will be spent on those projects - which will be a better stimulus.

Who trusts the California lawmakers anymore with their money? They couldn’t balance a budget, even knowing the $40+ billion hole they were in. It turns out that their solution wasn’t a solution at all - it was a stop-gap measure so that they could say they had a solution. Why should they be trusted with federal dollars - which are paid for by taxpayers - when they cannot work effectively with California dollars?

In any case, there is now an $8 billion hole, and that will only grow each say there is no solution to it.