California regulators Thursday are expected to adopt the nation’s most comprehensive carbon trading regime, creating a market-based way to lower greenhouse gas emissions at a time when similar efforts have stalled in Congress.
The program is the centerpiece of the state’s 2006 global warming law, which aims to slash carbon dioxide and other planet-heating pollution to 1990 levels by 2020. That would amount to a 15% cut from today’s level.
The cap-and-trade system “will help drive innovation, create more green jobs and clean up our air and environment,” said California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary D. Nichols, adding that it “provides flexibility” to industry and takes “into consideration the current economic climate.”
LA TIMES
The ambitious program would cap most of the state’s greenhouse gases, including those from more than 600 power plants, refineries, cement plants and other big factories. It would allow companies to buy and sell emission allowances among themselves to reach an overall goal of cutting planet-warming pollutants 15% below today’s levels by 2020.
Well, states are the laboratories of democracy. An imposition of cap-and-trade would allow the rest of the country to see how well it works to lower carbon emissions, and just how much it “drives innovation” and “provides flexibility.” The only innovation this will likely produce will be the relocation of energy producers to neighboring states. Los Angeles, for instance, buys a significant amount of its power from Arizona, a trend that will likely intensify as the cost disparity for producers grows as a result of regulatory growth and mandated caps on production. Welcome back to rolling blackouts when energy production fails to grow with demand.
Nor will that be the only impact on California’s economy. The costs of cap-and-trade will get passed to consumers in the form of higher energy bills. As has been repeatedly shown, that will have a deeply regressive impact on California’s poor and working class. They will either have to spend more of their smaller discretionary funds on energy or cut back, forcing them to spend less on energy-consuming products and damaging the retail economy in California even more. Those who can move will relocate to other states, mainly the middle class, which will accelerate a trend already seen in California.
CO2 Insanity explains how this new regulatory increase in California that effects us all, especially the poor.
Sure it’s pretty but people and businesses are already moving out and it will get worse when this kicks in and everyone’s wallets start getting drained more than they already are. You can go here and read up on it if you want to.
Want a clue on how bad it already is? According to The Tax Foundation…..
California’s business climate ranks 49th out of 50 states (57 if you’re President Obama)(Soon to be 50!)
California’s top income tax rate is 4th highest in the nation (Soon to be #1)
California’s sales tax rate is the highest in the nation (See? We’re already #1)
As far as the Feds go we give up $1.00 and get 78 cents back, meaning we support other ‘vampire’ states. (THAT’S what that donor thing on my driver’s license means!)
Federal OSHA isn’t good enough, we get to support a redundant Cal-OSHA
Federal EPA isn’t good enough either, we get to support the California Air Resources Board giving us the ‘privilege’ of paying more redundancy. (They’re the ones that employ people with mail-order PhD’s and overestimate diesel pollution by 340% so they can screw us more than they already are)
Now thanks to the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Gates, James Cameron and other eco-loons, we failed to get enough voters with brains to reign in AB32 (actually, based on the last election, having enough voters with brains in California appears to be a statistical impossibility).
[….]
In a very short time everything you buy will suddenly cost more because just about everything and anything you buy uses power generated by fuel or electricity to be manufactured or delivered.
Your gas and electric bills will be rising because the gas and electric companies will now have to buy permits from the state and/or reduce their pollution. Think PG & E or Edison are going to eat this? If you do you’re dumber than a rock. And don’t give me that BS about the wind turbines and solar panels being subsidized because it’s your money (called taxes bonehead) that’s subsidizing it. Absent that no one would be installing them because they’re either unprofitable or they’d have to charge you $10,000 a month to turn the lights on in your home to pay for them.
Those higher power charges will result in ALL businesses in California having to raise the price of what they sell. Grocery stores, car dealers, restaurants, motels, hotels, movies, hospitals, doctors, lawyers, Indian Chiefs and everyone else in the state will have to either eat the rate increases or charge YOU more to make up for it. Guess which one’s going to happen?
Everything you buy is delivered by trains, planes, trucks, or steamships. They all run on diesel, gas or aviation fuel. Think they’re going to eat it? Nope! They’ll apply a fuel surcharge to everything including your airplane tickets to make up for the additional charges from the refineries so they can pay for their permits to pollute or invest more money to reduce their pollution. That money doesn’t grow on trees greentards! YOU get to pay for it.
Want a new house? Well wait until the price of lumber, nails, screws, roofing, stucco, cement, tile and everything else used in construction goes through the roof. That house that was a million last year will soon be a lot more.
Retired? I’d suggest you move to another state as soon as possible before a) you run out of money b) you can’t find anyone to buy your house because they’re all broke and c) the price to move out will be out of site because your mover spends 5 fortunes a year on diesel fuel for his trucks.
Think about it, even your crab will cost more once this starts because those boats run on diesel engines, they don’t row out to the Farallon Islands anymore folks. You can watch the price of your cable TV, cell phones, auto repairs, furniture, clothing, appliances and EVERYTHING go up.
In this first video Dick Morris goes over the legislature control and gubernatorial leadership in about 20 states that Republicans are taking over control of in January. He explains one of the first glaring possibilities of change they will be confronted with and possibly try and truly change (let’s hope so):
Dennis Prager touches on just how much these unions (yes, teachers unions as well) are bankrupting the nation. He references an Economist magazine article that is also referenced in a previous post entitled, “500-Billion Unsecured California Pensions and growing; 3.2 Trillion Nationally” – below, Prager hits the nail on the head in his saying these are deals with the devil:
(Green is the new Red… see the hammers? Can you spot the sickles? [windmills])
Jennifer Kerns over at UNLIBERAL has written a short, concise example of the failure of the left in one of its most prized positions… Green Jobs.
First Evidence that Green Jobs Were a White Lie
….Just one day after environmental advocates achieved victory in protecting their $140-billion Energy Tax at the ballot box, one of California’s prominent solar companies announced plans to close its solar panel factory and lay off workers in California. According to Todd Woody at the New York Times, that’s not all. The Silicon Valley solar company also declared they will cancel plans for further expansion to a second, new facility in California.
Wait, weren’t we supposed to become the perfect market for Green jobs?
As it turns out, no. But it wasn’t for lack of bloated government funding. You may recall that Governor Schwarzenegger participated in Solyndra’s groundbreaking ceremony last year, promising that AB 32 would bring exactly these kind of Green jobs. President Obama visited the plant as recently as May of this year. In fact, Solyndra had already received a half-billion dollars in Federal guaranteed funding. But even high-profile political attention and hundreds of millions of dollars weren’t enough to keep their doors open.
The closure of California’s leading solar plant just proves the theory that government can’t “buy” Green jobs. You can’t force people into doing business in a state that isn’t friendly to business. And you can’t throw money at the problem. Amid big promises of Green jobs, California’s companies — and their employees — will unfortunately soon discover that the Green jobs promise was all a white lie.
Pensions in Peril: The funding status of state-sponsored pension plans:
As the races for governor heat up in thirty-six states, the question of how to fix troubled state-sponsored pension plans may be one of the most challenging that candidates will have to face. State pension plans are underfunded by $3.2 trillion when misguided accounting practices are corrected according to research by Joshua D. Rauh, an associate professor of finance at the Kellogg School of Management, and Robert Novy-Marx at the University of Chicago, published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. Furthermore, because pension funds are highly exposed to market risks, there is only a 5 percent chance that they will perform well enough to meet the needs of retirees in fifteen years.
State governments in the United States had approximately $2 trillion set aside in pension funds and $3 trillion of “stated” pension liabilities in December 2008. By this measure, the funds seemed to be short nearly $1 trillion. But according to Rauh and Novy-Marx, the shortfall is more than three times larger, at $3.2 trillion. The lower estimate, they say, is the result of government accounting standards that require states to apply accounting procedures that severely understate their defined-benefit pension plan liabilities….
New York Times: State debt woes grow too big to camouflage:
…Pensions are debts, too, after all, paid over time just like bonds. But states do not disclose how much they owe retirees when they disclose their bonded debt, and state officials steadfastly oppose valuing their pensions at market rates.
Joshua Rauh, an economist at Northwestern University, and Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Chicago, recently recalculated the value of the 50 states’ pension obligations the way the bond markets value debt. They put the number at $5.17 trillion.
After the $1.94 trillion set aside in state pension funds was subtracted, there was a gap of $3.23 trillion — more than three times the amount the states owe their bondholders.
“When you see that, you recognize that states are in trouble even more than we recognize,” Mr. Rauh said.
With bond payments and pension contributions consuming big chunks of state budgets, Mr. Rauh said, some states were already falling behind on unsecured debts, like bills from vendors. “Those are debts, too,” he said.
In Illinois, the state comptroller recently said the state was nearly $9 billion behind on its bills to vendors, which he called an “ongoing fiscal disaster.” On Monday, Fitch Ratings downgraded several categories of Illinois’s debt, citing the state’s accounts payable backlog. California had to pay its vendors with i.o.u.’s last year.
“These are the things that can precipitate a crisis,” Mr. Rauh said.
Verum Serum points to the recent Stanford study that shows California owing 500-billion (that’s a “B”) dollars in unsecured pensions (and growing):
Yesterday, Stanford released an analysis of California’s pension liability which showed it may be as high as $500 billion, i.e. six times the state’s annual budget. Much of this liability has been hidden behind rosy assumptions of 7.5-8.0% returns on investment.
How did we get here? The Governor’s economic adviser David Crane put it this way:
State legislators are afraid even to utter the words “pension reform” for fear of alienating what has become — since passage of the Dills Act in 1978, which endowed state public employees with collective bargaining rights on top of their civil service protections — the single most politically influential constituency in our state: government employees.
Because legislators are unwilling to raise issues that might offend that constituency, they have effectively turned the peroration of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address on its head: Instead of a government of the people, by the people and for the people, we have become a government of its employees, by its employees and for its employees.
In short, we got here because unions demanded levels of benefits which the state could not afford. That happened because liberal Governors (Jerry Brown) gave unions the power to put us all in this position….
California’s governor Schwarzenegger commissioned a study by Stanford University, which has found that California’s three public employee pension funds (The California Public Employees’ Retirement System [CalPERS], California State Teachers’ Retirement System [CalSTRS], and University of California Retirement System [UCRS]) lost $109.7 billion in portfolio value in one year (June ’08 to June ’09) and are currently in shortfall of “more than half a trillion dollars.”
American Thinker has a great article on this as well, naming names even:
California’s governor Schwarzenegger commissioned a study by Stanford University, which has found that California’s three public employee pension funds The California Public Employees’ Retirement System [CalPERS], California State Teachers’ Retirement System [CalSTRS], and University of California Retirement System [UCRS]) lost $109.7 billion in portfolio value in one year (June ’08 to June ’09) and are currently in shortfall of “more than half a trillion dollars.”
By law, California taxpayers are required to pay the public employees’ pensions shortfalls that may occur. Local governments cannot “print money” as the federal government does to cover budget deficits.
What should have been considered a huge scandal in the state pension fund system in the past year got little attention but is more pertinent now: The two largest plans, CalPERS and CalSTRS, were reportedly near bankruptcy in 2009 after it was learned the funds had lost from 25%-41% of their value due to risky investments in real estate and the stock market. Former employees of the state plans were accused in January of getting huge fees to direct pension investments to certain banks or ventures.
There are outrageous examples of abuse in the California public pension system.
PensionTsunami.com, which has been tracking the pension fund liability issue for five years, has found that 9, 233 retired members of CalPERS or CalSTRS receive more than $100,000 per year in retirement benefits, amounting to more than a billion dollars a year.
The retired city administrator of Vernon, California, Bruce Malkenhorst, receives an annual pension of $449,675 from CalPERS. Vernon, a Los Angeles suburb, has 92 residents….
This entire article is imported from American Thinker, and even though it is dated, maybe many Californians missed this HUGE problem prior to the election?
California is the nation’s shameful example of what happens when Democrats influenced by big-government labor rule the statehouse for forty years.
With 12.5% unemployment (up from 4.5% a mere three years ago) and a “recognized” budget deficit of $21 billion, California has just found that out it is in much, much more financial trouble than anyone, especially a Democrat, really wants to admit.
California’s governor Schwarzenegger commissioned a study by Stanford University, which has found that California’s three public employee pension funds (The California Public Employees’ Retirement System [CalPERS], California State Teachers’ Retirement System [CalSTRS], and University of California Retirement System [UCRS]) lost $109.7 billion in portfolio value in one year (June ’08 to June ’09) and are currently in shortfall of “more than half a trillion dollars.”
By law, California taxpayers are required to pay the public employees’ pensions shortfalls that may occur. Local governments cannot “print money” as the federal government does to cover budget deficits.
What should have been considered a huge scandal in the state pension fund system in the past year got little attention but is more pertinent now: The two largest plans, CalPERS and CalSTRS, were reportedly near bankruptcy in 2009 after it was learned the funds had lost from 25%-41% of their value due to risky investments in real estate and the stock market. Former employees of the state plans were accused in January of getting huge fees to direct pension investments to certain banks or ventures.
There are outrageous examples of abuse in the California public pension system.
PensionTsunami.com, which has been tracking the pension fund liability issue for five years, has found that 9, 233 retired members of CalPERS or CalSTRS receive more than $100,000 per year in retirement benefits, amounting to more than a billion dollars a year.
The retired city administrator of Vernon, California, Bruce Malkenhorst, receives an annual pension of $449,675 from CalPERS. Vernon, a Los Angeles suburb, has 92 residents.
California’s state employee pension fund liabilities have ballooned for years with increased numbers of state employees, many of whom can retire at age 50, can “spike” their last years’ income with overtime to increase their retirement, and can then move on to other government or private jobs without losing their pensions.
Why should Californians care about this confusing, complicated budget problem with a huge, unfathomable invoice attached? David Crane, writing for the Los Angeles Times, says that today’s pension fund shortfall is tomorrow’s budget cut to something some Californian is likely to miss.
In California’s case, past pension underfunding means reduced funding of current programs. This explains why pension costs rose 2,000% from 1999 to 2009, while state funding for higher education declined over the same period.
Californians are feeling the pain of the budget crisis, but they often misplace their criticisms.
Let’s go to the videotape this year of the many demonstrations on the many University of California campuses, where students have rioted against proposed 32% state tuition increases and program cuts.
Approximately 22,000 California teachers have just received “pink slips” indicating that they may be laid off due to budget cuts next fall. An additional 20,000 were laid off last year. California is cutting “live” teachers out of classrooms in order to pay for retired teachers.
California schools have gone from number one in the country in the 1970s to at or near the bottom in performance and funding.
Who is to blame for this ticking-time bomb of unfunded public pension liability?
“Thank” Jerry Brown. As Governor “Moonbeam” of California in 1978, he signed the “Dill Act,” which gave California public employees the right to collective bargaining.
Brown, who has been governor, Oakland mayor, and attorney general, now wants to be California governor…again. Four big, grateful government labor unions are backing him…again.
Speaking recently to the Service Employees International Union, Jerry Brown “the populist” said he was proud to have given state employees “the choice” to belong to unions in the ’70s, and he will “take a look” at the pension funds to make sure that they are actuarially sound. Big applause line.
Speaking to another union group in Sacramento, Brown was caught on videotape asking the labor leaders to “do the dirty work” and “attack” Republican candidates who oppose him in the governor’s race. (Hear it here.)
Who else is to blame?
Since Brown gave them a green light in the 1970s, public employee unions have become a muscular, dominating force in California politics. State employee unions spent a whopping $31.7 million on state races just from 2001-2006, according to the California Fair Political Practices commission — higher than any other group, including corporations. The majority-Democrat California legislature has voted accordingly.
What can be done?
Jerry Brown the rerun, who is running technically unopposed by any other candidate in the Democratic primary, has been oddly silent on his state’s dire budgetary woes. His campaign site news releases do not mention budget problems.
At the same time, it has been noted by the tabloid media that Jerry Brown has been weirdly over-involved as California’s attorney general, his current job, in the celebrity death investigations of Anna Nicole Smith, Michael Jackson, and Corey Haim. His office spent several months investigating ACORN employees who were caught in a videotape sting organizing houses of prostitution in government housing. Brown has just determined that there will be no prosecution of ACORN in his state.
Brown also went to the unusual extra step to seal his gubernatorial records from his 1970s-’80s term for fifty years. (U.S. presidents can seal records only up to twelve years for national security purposes.)
Brown refuses to join with fourteen other states’ attorneys general in challenging the recently-passed health care reform law, even though it will mandate billions more in unfunded expenses to the financially-strapped California Medicaid program. He says that to challenge Obamacare would be to engage in “poisonous partisanship.”
Republican gubernatorial candidates are tacking the pension fund liability:
Steve Poizner says he supports a “two-tier” system for current and new state employees but doesn’t think that a new governor will be able to come in and “steamroll” the unions.
Meg Whitman has campaigned on cutting state employee rolls and advocates “401(k)” style pensions for government workers and higher retirement ages (from age 50 to 55 or 65).
What can California do?
The U.S. Constitution technically does not allow for states to go bankrupt. Vallejo, California was the first city in the country to go bankrupt and has been establishing new “tiers” of retirement plans for police and fire employees.
The newly-elected governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie, is tackling government employees’ unions to some effect. Christie has announced his intentions to cut substantially from government executive positions, privatize other state jobs, and cut positions.
There has been criticism of increased funding and budget overruns for state prisons due to the influence of the California prison guards’ union.
The Citizen Power Campaign seeks to “unplug” the public employee unions and is endorsed by many of the conservative candidates for office in California, including Republican Steve Poizner for governor.
One thing California clearly does not need is the déjà vu “hair of the dog” in the person of 1970s retread Democrat Jerry Brown.
I wanted to post this piece on Jerry Brown in response to a few questions my wife asked and I wasn’t able to respond to them at the time. Now I know (which means she knows). First we will take the progression of governors prior to and immediately following Jerry Brown’s two terms in office.
Before this look at the issue at hand, I will simply state the following:
Jerry’s father left Reagan with a 200-million dollar deficit;
Reagan left Jerry Brown a 500-million surplus;
and Jerry Brown left Deukmejian a billion dollar deficit.
This will be looked at more in-depth as we go along. Here is the progression of governors prior to Jerry brown and immediately following his two terms in governorship. The following is from Mercury News):
Pat Brown, 1959-1967
Population increased from 14.7 million to 18.8 million, nearly 28 percent.
Unadjusted spending rose from $1.9 billion to nearly $4.7 billion, or 141 percent.
After inflation is factored, per capita expenditures rose from nearly $1,309 to $2,000.
That represents a 53 percent increase in real spending.
Social and economic factors: Pat Brown presided over the golden age of expansion in California, a period that saw the beginning of the State Water Project, the building of freeways, growth of the public school system and the Master Plan for Higher Education. At the same time, the aerospace industry was booming, much of it located in California.
Then Reagan came into the position:
Ronald Reagan, 1967-1975
Population increased from 18.8 million to 21.2 million, slightly more than 12 percent.
Unadjusted spending rose from nearly $4.7 billion to nearly $10.3 billion, or 121 percent.
After inflation is factored, per capita expenditures rose from $2,000 to nearly $2,253.
That represents a 12.6 percent increase in real spending.
Social and economic factors: Ronald Reagan was forced to rein in spending, in large part because of two recessions and lower defense spending by the federal government as Vietnam wound down. At the time, Reagan signed California’s largest tax increase to balance the state budget.
Then came Jerry Brown:
Jerry Brown, 1975-1983
Population increased from 21.2 million to 24.8 million, or 17 percent.
Unadjusted spending rose from nearly $10.3 billion to slightly more than $25.3 billion, or nearly 147 percent.
After inflation is factored, per capita expenditures rose from $2,253 to nearly $2,530.
That represents a 12.3 percent increase in real spending.
Social and economic factors: Like his predecessor, Jerry Brown also dealt with recessions and high inflation. But he and the Legislature dramatically altered funding to local governments and schools in 1978 after a taxpayer revolt capped property taxes. Lawmakers sent more than $26 billion dollars to schools and local governments through the end of Brown’s term.
And following Jerry Brown’s tenure was Deukmajian:
George Deukmejian, 1983-1991
Population increased from 24.8 million to 29.8 million, or 20 percent.
Unadjusted spending rose from $25.3 billion to nearly $51.4 billion, or 103 percent.
After inflation is factored, per capita expenditures rose from $2,530 to $3,149.
That represents a 24.5 percent increase in real spending.
Social and economic factors: George Deukmejian benefited from a national economic turnaround and signed state budgets that boosted spending over his eight-year term.
During Brown’s tenure he was faced with a tax revolt partly due to Reagan’s raising of taxes. At first Jerry was one of the most ardent critics of Proposition 13 which put a cap on property taxes. Some say later he defended this proposition vigorously, others argue this point however. That is neither here-nor-there. The bottom line is this,
When Jerry Brown came into his first term as Governor he saw and guided a surplus that crescendoed at about 6-billion dollars. Before dealing with his leaving office, I want to set up why this surplus happened. Even though Reagan increased taxes, he put into action many cuts that created this growing surplus which Jerry Brown inherited. Here are three letters Ronald Reagan wrote to those who asked on this subject. (Letter from Reagan: A Life in Letters, pp. 210-212):
[Letter to Mr. Jimmy Dixon, after 1975]
Dear Jimmy
It was good to see you the other night even though it was a split second. Thanks for your most generous words.
The figures I gave on California if those were the ones you meant are as follows: The state was spending well over a million dollars a day more than it was taking in and had been adding an average of 5,500 new employees a year for eight years.
In welfare 16 percent of all the welfare recipients in the country were on the rolls in California. We went to the people and asked for the top people in the state to serve on task forces. About 250 gave an average of 117 days full-time going into 64 state departments and agencies and came back with 1,800 specific recommendations as to how modern business practices could be used to make government more efficient. We implemented more than 1,600 of those. Before the end of my first term welfare was so out of hand the caseload was increasing by 40,000 people a month.
We froze the hiring of replacements for employees who left state service and instituted our welfare reforms. When our eight years ended we had virtually the same number of state employees we started with. Due to our growth in population this meant some departments had absorbed a workload increase of 66 percent. The welfare reforms halted the 40,000 a month increase—we now have 400,000 fewer people on welfare.
We’ve increased the grants to the truly needy by 43 percent, saved the taxpayers $2 billion and were able to return an $850 million surplus as a one-time tax rebate. All told we’ve given $5.7 billion back to the people in rebates, tax cuts and even bridge toll cuts. We gave the new government a balanced budget for the first time since 1943 plus a $500 million surplus.
If there are any more figures you want let me know.
Given my best to Jeanne.
Sincerely, Ron
In another letter to Mr. Squires in May of 1979, we find the following response:
Dear Mr. Squires:
I’m sorry to be so late in thanking you for your March 11 column, but it has only been brought to my attention in the last few days.
I appreciate your kindness in saying that I am in the mainstream of our party and that I am “an articulate and effective spokesman” for the philosophy of conservatism. You did, however, question whether I could (if given a chance) make such a philosophy operational. At the risk of seeming presumptuous, may I fill you in on some points with which you might not be familiar? It’s understandable, I hasten to say, that you wouldn’t have knowledge of happenings in California or that we did make such a philosophy work. I use the plural “we” because, as governor I had the help of some very fine people.
When I took office, California was insolvent and spending a million dollars a day more than tax revenues. In the eight years of our administration, we made the state solvent, attained a triple-A rating (Moody’s) for California bonds and left the new governor a half-billion dollar surplus. We also returned $5.7 billion to the taxpayers in direct rebates and credits.
It wasn’t all cut, squeeze, and trim, however. We increased support for public schools eight times as much as the increase in enrollment and increased the scholarship fund for needy students by 9,000 percent. While reducing the cost of welfare $2 billion in three years, we raised, at the same time, the grants for the needy by 43 percent. They hadn’t had a cost of living increase since 1958. Our reforms in the case of the mentally ill became a model for other states and even a few foreign countries. There were other accomplishments, but these few should reassure you that commonsense conservatism can be made to work.
One last point. You’ll be pleased to know that a number of your colleagues (members of the capital press corps) made a number of trips to the barbershop where my hair was cut and discovered for themselves that I did not dye my hair. Now, happily, enough grey is showing to make such research unnecessary.
Again my thanks for devoting your column to me.
Sincerely, Ronald Reagan
And the third letter to a Mr. George Jessel during the summer of 1979:
Dear George:
It was good to talk to you the other day, and I’m deeply grateful for your offer to help. After thinking it over, I believe probably the best things that you as a Californian might be able to say would have to do with some high points in my record as governor rather than trying to specify issues and my views on the problems.
For example: when I became governor, the state was virtually bankrupt, spending a million dollars a day more than it was taking in. The deficit in the middle of the fiscal year when I took office was already in excess of $200 million. The number of state employees had been increasing for eight years by around 6,000 employees a year. After eight years in office, we left our successor a $500 million surplus. The state payroll was virtually the same size in numbers of employees as it was when we started, and in the eight years, we had returned to the taxpayers in tax rebates and credits $5.7 billion. Each year that we accumulated a surplus, we simply gave it back to the people with the exception of the final year in which you leave office before the end of the year. California’s welfare load was increasing at 40,000 people a month.
We reformed welfare and changed that to an 8,000 per month decrease. Over a three-year period, we reduced the welfare rolls by almost 400,000 people, saved the taxpayers $2 billion, and were able to grant increases averaging 43 percent to the truly needy. They hadn’t had a cost of living increase since 1958. The state income tax had begun at the first $2,000 of earnings. When we left office, that had been changed to exemptions from the income tax until you were making $8,000. At the same time, we increased state aid to local schools. Our bonds received a triple-A rating by Moody’s for the first time in the histOry of the state.
I appointed more members of the minority communities to executive and policy-making positions than all the previous governors of California put together.
Unemployment, which historically has been higher in California than the national average, was lower than the national average during our terms in office, and the cost of living increase in California was lower than the national average.
George, I think that’s enough for now. If I think of anything else, I’ll jot it down and get it to you. Again, thanks for all that you’re doing.
Best regards, Ron
This cutting of programs and Jerry Brown’s inheriting of a growing surplus ($500 million) and his carrying through of fiscal responsibility early in his tenure caused California’s surplus to burgeon (5.8-billion). A Jerry Brown fact checking site speaks to this:
Governor Brown inherited a $555,000,000 surplus from Governor Reagan at the end of Fiscal Year 1974-75. Brown allowed the surplus to increase over three fiscal years until it reached $5,300,000,000 or a 954% increase. The California budget surplus was not only the largest budget surplus of any state in the nation, but California’s surplus of $5.3 billion tops the total of $3.3 billion in surpluses from all other states combined according to a letter from the National Governor’s Association and the National Conference of State Legislators which was sent to Chairman Charles Schultze of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors according to the Sacramento Bee (2-24-78).
In this same article Brown’s personal fiscal responsibility is displayed in him not moving into the governor’s mansion or using the governor’s limo. (Or this could be he was closely allied with anti-war socialists tso that denying these perks was more based on dogma in rejected bourgeois type living, keep in mind that while he cut pay for firemen and police he allocate a million dollars to Jane “Hanoi Hilton” Fonda’s arts program.) However, before leaving office, he and the Legislature spent much of the $6 billion surplus. In fact, the New York Times in April of 1992 spoke to this disparity in what was left the State when Jerry Brown turned over the Governorship:
“[In 1982,] The budget surplus had evaporated into a deficit of more than $1 billion and the state’s general fund reserve had fallen from nearly $2 billion to zero. The unemployment rate, worsened by a national recession, had risen to a record high of 9.9 percent.”
Some other articles talk of this “in the red” problem… which was created mainly — in my mind’s eye — by help of the early growth in power by the unions that Jerry Brown helped to empower and are now creating a 500-billion dollar deficit in what California owes its union workers pensions (this total from Stanford does not include medical benefits. There are 15,000 people in the $150,000 pension retirement that they can collect at age 55! See the 17-minute audio below):
The LA Times’ George Skelton Reported That Brown Had A $6 Billion Surplus. “Brown only had to shovel out money. The state was sitting on a $6-billion surplus, which state Treasurer Jesse Unruh called ‘obscene.’” (George Skelton, Op-Ed, “Schwarzenegger: A New Brown,” Los Angeles Times, 5/25/09)
Brown Left California With A “Full-Blown Financial Crisis.” “By 1983, when George Deukmejian replaced Brown in the governorship, California had a full-blown financial crisis on its hands. There was a billion-dollar-plus hole in the state budget, no reserves to cover it and the state’s bond rating slipped a notch to AA-plus.” (Dan Walters, “Big Bond Fight Reaches Ballot,” Sacramento Bee, 10/15/84)
“By the time Brown’s reign ended in 1983, therefore, the state was more than a billion dollars in the red, a crisis inherited by successor George Deukmejian.” (Dan Walters, “Duke Relaxes On Spending,” Sacramento Bee, 10/10/85)
I doubt if Jerry Brown and the slew of now liberal Democrats that fill major positions in the California government and the control of Democrats in the legislature and the passing of Prop 25 which now allows a passing of budget a simple majority act in California will do anything but increase regulations on businesses, raise taxes, and continue the flow of people and businesses leaving the state (see audio below). For instance, Jerry Brown’s response to why many entertainment businesses have left the state were due to permit issues, Gay Patriot (h/t) references Hugh Hewitt’s posting of this video:
Indeed, Jerry also doesn’t seem to understand why film production has fled California. It isn’t about permits, but about tax policy. Does any Democrat anywhere in the United States understand that capital and production are mobile? Can go anywhere at any time, and will?
In an interview on my program this week, Meg Whitman pointed to the announcement by Intel that its newest facility will be built in Oregon. This is the choice facing California: Rebuild the private sector with pro-growth tax policy, or dish out tax dollars to favored constituencies while unemployment continues at 12.5%.
This is why I called this time in California the “Grand Experiment” – people will see what a completely liberal Democrat controlled state does. which is why maybe 1.5 million people have left California:
Jobs, this is what people need the most, and they are going to states that give the greatest tax-breaks to businesses which invite businesses in which create jobs. Instead, state workers and unions are the only job sector growth [Public sector unions grew from representing 43.4 percent of government workers to 55.8 percent last year.]… which is the most horrible item in this recent election, as, Jerry Brown is beholden to them. The history of these unions and Jerry Brown is noted by American Thinker:
But the accomplishments stopped in the 1970s with the election of Governor Jerry Brown. Mr. Brown expropriated the budget money that had been allocated for infrastructure — much of it raised by motor fuel taxes — and diverted it to his own leftist causes. Aqueducts and freeways were canceled, including some that already were under construction. Brown also blocked private construction of power plants. His anti-American Dream was this: If you don’t build it; they won’t come.
But they came anyway, and now Californians waste millions of gallons of fuel in traffic jams. Forbes named California the nation’s worst state for drivers. During the time since Mr. Brown canceled most of the state’s freeway construction, Californians travel more than twice as many miles, but the lane mileage has increased by less than ten percent.
Despite insane spending, education quality worsens. Water rates continue to rise, yet irresponsible eco-fascists demand that taxpayers spend billions of dollars to demolish existing reservoirs. This year, chief executives voted California the worst state in the nation for doing business.
As governor in the 1970s, Mr. Brown signed legislation that gave state employee unions the collective bargaining power that now is driving the state toward bankruptcy. (Incidentally, he is running for governor again this year.) Brown was the first in a series of leftist Democrat and moderate Republican governors that raised taxes while lowering the productivity of the state’s employees by more than half. America’s productivity during that period in the private sector grew by 43 percent (one percent average, compounded annually), a benchmark that makes the relative performance of the state’s unionized employees even more dismal….
These unions were the largest donors to Jerry Brown (LA Times):
Brown raised more than $32 million for his campaign, and labor unions and other groups spent an additional $25 million on Brown’s behalf.
Here is American Thinkers input after highlighting the 1/2 a trillion dollar mess California is in:
Since Brown gave them a green light in the 1970s, public employee unions have become a muscular, dominating force in California politics. State employee unions spent a whopping $31.7 million on state races just from 2001-2006, according to the California Fair Political Practices commission — higher than any other group, including corporations. The majority-Democrat California legislature has voted accordingly.
Since California is mainly broke because of these unions, do you think he will seriously fix the problem? I doubt it highly… either will all the other union loving Democrats that are in office. He is still, in my mind’s eye, that same radical he has always been:
Even before his first run at governor, Jerry Brown, a graduate of Yale Law School, had developed a reputation as an aggressive antagonist while an antiwar organizer in the 1960s and California secretary of State from 1971 to 1975 (Green Gov)
[….]
Brown enjoyed a special personal and political relationship with anti-Vietnam War activists and socialist cum Democrat Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda (who were married the year before Brown became governor) and Hayden’s Campaign for Economic Democracy (CED). Many Brown administration employees were activists in the CED; however, the California State Senate refused to confirm Fonda to the California Arts Commission. (Jerry Brown Fact Check)
With prop 25 passing, which allow Democrats to tax whatever they wish with a simple majority, and pretty much a straight Democratic ticket won. The Left here in the Golden State will grow the power of government, embed unions more and more, tax more and more businesses (which will leave for states that lower taxes on them)… you will see how unchecked Democratic power acts. What is your state tax now? Do you know what sites to visit to see how many businesses are coming and leaving this state? What is your property taxes now?
You will see with your own eyes many leave this state and you will understand why — if not now, later it will hit you like a ton of bricks. When other states remove Democrats and put in their place small government conservatives, and California rebuffs the rest of the countries direction, we are set for a grand experiment. Will California’s economic position (when compared to countries would be the 11th most economically prosperous) increase or decrease in its economic standing? Will sanctuary cities increase or decrease? Will retirement packages increase in their worth for state and union workers? Or will they be repackaged so that the state becomes more broke?
All these are pertinent questions. And I will again post what the differences of the Left and right are by Medved and Prager:
There is some crazy information on California and how much we owe for our state workers benefits package. We are beyond bankrupt! (I removed phone calls from the interview and shortened it a bit.)
A four year college in Berkley where the co-founder called for jihad on American troops. Sharia law will be studied. The following comes from Creeping Sharia:
Zaytuna College is a new four-year college in Berkeley, California. Zaytuna is seeking to become the first accredited Muslim college in the United States. The name comes from the Arabic word for olives.
The process of full accreditation could take several years. That will make it easier for students to get financial aid, and to have their education recognized by employers and other schools.
Zaytuna held its first classes this summer — intensive study of Arabic to prepare for classes in the fall. Men and women sat on opposite sides of the auditorium. Most of the men had beards and wore skull caps. Most of the women covered their hair with scarves.
Zaytuna currently offers two majors, a choice of Islamic law and religion or Arabic language.
Imam Zaid Shakir is a professor and co-founder of Zaytuna. He was born in Berkeley….
[….]
Zaid Shakir wants Islam rooted in the land (the U.S.) like it has been rooted in other countries that Islam has conquered. Since every country where Islam is now dominant has been conquered by Islamic jihad. Shakir is a proponent of jihad, as WND noted, Zaid Shakir Exhorts Islamic faithful to target planes carrying ’82nd Airborne’:
Radical Islamic cleric Zaid Shakir, a frequent guest speaker at CAIR events, tells his Muslim audiences: “Jihad is physically fighting the enemies of Islam to protect and advance the religion of Islam. This is jihad.”
Acceptable targets of jihad, he says, include U.S. military aircraft.
“Islam doesn’t permit us to hijack airplanes filled with civilian people,” Shakir once told a Muslim audience. However, “If you hijack an airplane filled with the 82nd Airborne, that’s something else.”
The 82nd Airborne Division’s elite paratroopers fly out of Fort Bragg, N.C., which is part of North Carolina state Sen. Larry Shaw’s district. Shaw is CAIR’s new chairman.
From our post last year on the same topic and the other founder of the Islamist college:
Time magazine asks what will happen if the US leaves Afghanistan. Sharia law, that’s what. Like 2-million dying after the US left Vietnam… killings will increase in Afghanistan as well. But where the Communists killed by a bullet to the head, these Islamo-Nazi’s are sadomasochists!
