Hey Boss...

In yesterday's post I mentioned our friend Tim who re-located to Reno from Southern California.  Thankfully his business relocation has been a great success, this is good news for Reno, for Nevada, for his workers.  It is bad news for California.

Tim's father started a company in the 1950's that makes temperature control devices.  Tim and his brothers now own the company and Tim runs it.  Over bourbon and steaks at his home on Sunday night he related the story of his move to Reno.

Several years ago his managers came to him and said, "Hey boss, we want to move."  Tim said he kind of shrugged it off but said he gave them three major milestones they needed to meet and then he would discuss relocating the company.

Two years later the group came back to him and said, "we met all the goals you set up. We have investigated Phoenix, Las Vegas, Reno.." And the discussions began.

It seems that not only did the managers want to move but so did the workers who assembly the devices they sell.  They all wanted out of Southern California and all of California.

So after some investigating Tim decided Reno would make a good fit for his company and his employees.  He brought them up to Reno in groups to learn about the area.  With each trip it became clearer and clearer the company would be moving.

Tim told us that 23 employees relocated from Southern California to Reno, almost the entire company.  Just a few line workers and some of his sales staff chose not to make the move--and those were mostly for family reasons.  Those who moved are glad they did as they feel they have a much better quality of life for their families and lower cost of living.

As for the company, Tim says they have grown since the move four years ago, despite the economy.  They have added local workers and have no regrets about the move.

And, as Tim says, "we all got 9% pay raises since we no longer pay California income tax!"

"The Nanny" Starring California

nan-ny: noun, : a child's nurse or caregiver

We think of nannies as individuals charged to care for and protect the children of others--for a fee. I grew up with some two wonderful nannies: Maria and Mary Poppins, okay they both happened to be Julie Andrews. While my nannies were fictional my mom was real, a strong and intelligent woman who had a wonderful sense of humor and raised my sister, brother and I to be respectful, courteous, kind and thoughtful. Our dad travelled quite a bit for his career so many of the trials and tribulations of growing up led to mom, putting on band-aids, resovling disputes, helping with school projects, car pooling to football or ballet. For us nannies were fictional characters plopped into households with disinterested or distracted parents who did not have the time to raise their children so they paid someone to do it for them.

Starting today, July 1st, California has some new laws taking effect meant to protect us, the citizens of California. Most notable of these laws are those meant to protect me, and more importantly my children, from getting fat or obsese; taking the responsibility for good nutrition and dietary habits away from the family and giving it to the state and those who provide food for us. Starting today restaurants must post the calories of every serving--because I really had no idea that a dinner of a bacon-avocado cheeseburger, fries and chocolate-coconut cheesecake was probably higher in calories than the grilled chicken salad with vinagrette on the side. Starting today high schools will no longer be able to sell sodas to students--because they will not go off campus to get sodas anyway and the net result will be a loss in revenue for clubs and student organizations. Starting today all schools in the state can no longer use those nasty transfats--margarine, shortening or oils that contain trans-fats; since the schools are already providing free lunches to much of the population they want to make sure they are somewhat not unhealthy. Okay, I'll give them this one, while still overly intrusive to me--I think local districts should be working with parents and the local community to develop healthy breakfasts and lunches using non-fried foods, preservatives or colorings as much as possible. So one out of three new laws, actually not a bad record for our state goverment.

On top of previous laws passed, over one thousand per year in California the past several years, the state has intruded more and more into our lives and what should be our responsibilities. While you cannot legislate against stupidity you can legislate stupidly and that is what California's lawmakers have tried to do and done the past decade or more. Law after law after law is passed that is intendend to "protect" the people of California, as if the Legislature can supercede God and prevent death. One tragic accident happens and someone dies as a result and the lawmakers go into full nanny mode and legislation begins to pour out of Sacramento to prevent such a tragedy again. From what we can do in our cars, to where people can smoke, to building standards against the one in a thousand years earthquake, California lawmakers have spent hours and days and weeks crafting legislation that is meant to save us from ourselves.

A child's nurse or caregiver, for a fee. While California lawmakers have played nanny to the citizens of the state, their main charges as nannies have not been the ordinary citizens of their districts however, the main role of protection and nurturing and care giving has been those who pay the fees for their services. If the Legislature is the Nanny, the citizens are the step-children in the relationship and the real children are the public employees--by far the biggest benefactors in the nanny state. As the annual budget deficits and debates occur in Sacramento the biggest piece of our budget--salaries and benefits--are rarely a part of any discussions. Until now.

The nannies in the Democratic majority in the Assembly and Senate are circling their prams as it is evident that their charges are going to have to pay some of the price to achieve a balanced budget. This week Governor Schwarzenegger stated he wants a two-tiered pension system for public employees, the existing tier affect the 200,000 plus employees and a new tier for everyone hired from today forward. The nannies are in an uproar trying to protect employees who have not yet been hired yet. Why? Because they are in office almost exclusively because of the funding their campaigns have received from the public employee unions. Changing benefits and retirement for future employees changes the funds flowing through the unions, and that is not good for future campaign donations.

For the past decade the nannies have pushed through budgets, with some Republicans signing off on them and Republican Governor(s) signing the budgets, that have increased the number of state employees--increasing the size of the public employee unions, increasing their dues revenue, increasing their political contributions and increasing the campaign donations given to elect and re-elect the lawmakers. A very nice relationship that has been incredibly beneficial to both sides has resulted in a Legislature with too much time spent passing laws impacting the rest of the state and protecting the workers for the state.

Gabriella Holt, who ran for Assembly in Long Beach and lost to a Democrat with full backing from state employee union, has started a group that is on the right track. Citizens for California Reform is committed to changing the structure of California's government, mainly by returning our Legislature to a part-time position. Holt argues, rightfully I feel, that our state elected officials are over-paid and by being full time have too much time when they are not governing and therefore are able to meddle. A full time legislature that year after year cannot follow the state constitution, missing annual budget deadlines every year. So what are they doing all year if they are not addressing and working on the number one issue in the state? Banning sodas, counting your calories, increasing taxes, hiring more workers and adding to the expenses for the state today and for decades to come.

A nanny is paid to take care of someone else's children. If California is a Nanny State, who are the children that are the primary focus of the nannies' care, you or the state workers? With the economic situation the way it is, let's cut back expenses and cut our nanny to part-time.

Political Fearmongering

This past weekend our church hosted Dr. Terry Cole-Whittaker, new thought guru, inspirational speaker, motivator and someone who just has her head on right. She conducted a few workshops and on Sunday gave the sermon to the congregation. Dr. Terry's main message is that we are trapped in thought and because we are trapped in thought our potential is limited to the thoughts that trap us. Freeing ourselves from negative thoughts and thinking frees us to attain what we desire in life and gives us the freedom to be ourselves and be truly happy.

Advertising and marketing are created and presented to capture our thoughts and evoke emotional responses that in turn cause us to purchase products and services or what we think of someone or something. Hum a jingle, re-use a slogan, repeat what is now known as a "talking point" and the marketers and advertisers have done their job. Punch a certain hole in a ballot and the marketers and advertisers have done their job; always punch the same or similar hole in a ballot and they have really done their job as they have hooked you on a party the same way Phillip Morris hooks others on cigarettes.

Dr. Terry spoke about the fearmongering that surrounds us. Creating a sense of doom and failure if certain events happen or do not happen, many of which are far exaggerated to create false power for those creating the fear. Politicians, especially in California state politics where there is no competition for the elected officials, excel at fearmongering and delivering the message of fear. Their purpose is to get you to trust them to protect and save you from the evil that awaits if you do not react as they wish.

Paramount in the fearmongering process is the budget process that consumes our state every year. Every year members of the California Legislature majority, aided by their friends in the major media in the state, tell us all that we will lose in this state if they are not allowed to spend more money. Eventually a few members of the minority cave in to the pressure and pass a budget that increases spending in California and because the spending was not cut enough services are not expanded enough, and the following year we must spend even more money.

This year we finally have arrived at a breaking point. After a decade of increasing spending against increasing revenue elected officials are finally faced with declining revenue. Incredibly their first reaction is to raise taxes on citizens struggling in a declining economy. They hammered us with fearful messages of taking away funding for education, health care and public safety. With a payroll that has ballooned to 235,000 employees in the state we are told to pay even higher taxes so each of them can keep their jobs, providing fewer services than a decade ago when the state payroll barely reached 150,000 employees.

As the June 30th fiscal year end rapidly approaches and a budget is one again ready to be debated and deadlines missed, and payments from the state to hospitals and local school districts are withheld, we can count on more fearful messages eminating from Sacramento. Messages that we must raise taxes or we will see funding for hospitals cut, but no state employees, funding for schoold districts cut, but no state employees. To protect their greatest financial supporters the majority in the Legislature, aided by the media and the Governor, will give us messages of fear and hope we support their protecting the employment of many in a wasteful beauracracy.

Our state government is filled with inefficiencies and waste. Health care delivery in local communities is severely hampered by state workers and regulations that waste billions of dollars that could, and should, be delivered to local health care providers. Instead tens of thousands of workers are supported at the state level monitoring a system they created so they can have something to monitor. Education is hampered for the same reasons with the state employing thousands of workers who having nothing to do with educating a child, but rather exist to create a beauracracy to monitor the school districts who could use those funds.

Enough with governing by telling us all the bad things that will happen. It is time for our elected officials to quit talking and start working. Instead of putting fear into the citizens of the state put the fear into the managers of all the programs and departments you have created, fear that they need to be more efficient and waste less of our tax dollars or they will lose their jobs. Instead of trying to gain our support by using fear to show why we need more spending, our politicians need to show us the positive results from their working with senior state leadership to pare spending and payroll.

Across the state businesses are making hard decisions to become more efficient and stay open. Meanwhile they are facing increasing expenses from a group of politicians in Sacramento afraid to make those same hard decisions. Unfortunately with no competition in their elections for office due to gerrymandered districts, fearmongering works. Voters always punch the hole with the (D) or (R) next to it--over 65% voting (D) in California, and keep electing the same person year after year after year. Sure the name may change but the person filling the seat is no different than the person who filled it before.

As we approach a new round of elections in 2010 California voters need to ignore the messages of "incumbent" and party affiliation and instead start looking at the person, the actual person, on the ballots. Are they participating in politics of fear? Will they continue the same failed policies and politics that have led our state to where it is today? Did you vote for "change" in 2008 but are willing the punch a ballot for "same" in 2010? Would you rather have leadership that is telling you all the bad things that can happen if they do not get their way, or a leader telling you all the good thing that will happen if you join them and elect them to office?

Dr. Terry's message is very true in a democracy, we get what we desire and what we think we desire. Our government failure is a result of voter failure to discern the facts from the messages. To reward the politics of fearmongering that has proven successful thereby perpetuating the message and the process have proven successful by the voters and therefore will continue--until voters decide to stop listening to the messages delivered by those with the most to benefit from our believing those messages.

We can attain what we want--honest governance, solid public fiscal management, safe streets and schools, quality healthcare and education. We can attain these things as soon was we as a people decide to elect those people who want the same things. We can attain these things as soon as we decide to quit electing those who enrich a few while impovershish the many, trapping them in fearful thinking and reactions.

.

Charitas Dictator: My Solutions to CA Financial Crisis

Even San Francisco rejected them. By a landslide the voters of California told its government, "We do not want more taxes. We do not want you raiding one account to pay others. We do not want to extend your ability to spend our money with impunity." So now what? What will our dysfunctional state government do to change its culture of spending on salaries and expanding government?

Were I placed in the role of Charitas Dictator of California I would enact the following decrees as solutions to California's budget difficulties today and fix them for future years. Someone has to stick their neck out, goodness knows our Legislature will not as evidence by their continuous use of Propositions to do their jobs.

Make it harder to get Propositions on the ballot. Too often our state Legislature shirks their responsibility in making difficult decisions by putting propositions on the ballot and letting the voters decide. The Propositions that were on the ballot on Tuesday never should have been sent to the voters. Not only did voters say "No" to tax increases and more spending, they also said "No" to the Legislature when asked to do their job. Restrict the Legislature from placing any propositions on the ballot, increase the number of signatures required for the people to place an initiative on the ballot from 5% of the turnout from previous gubernatorial election to 10%.

Eliminate term limits. Combined with the changes in the redistricting process that become effective in 2012, we should eliminate term limits for members of the Assembly and Senate. The revolving doors in Sacramento create revolving doors in elected offices throughout the state creating instability and politicians spending more time collecting donations and working for election to the next level than paying attention to their current jobs and constituents. Elections are term limits, do not limit how many an individual may win.

Spending cap mandates on the State budget. Regardless of revenue the growth of the state budget should be capped at a formula of population growth and inflation. If revenues exceed spending funds should be divided between paying down debt, funding reserve accounts, returning funds to counties and cities and returning taxes to tax payers in the form of rebates. Increased revenues over a prolonged period should not enrich those who work for the state, but rather should be returned to those who provided the excess revenue.

Budgets are made on revenues received not forecast. In conjunction with the previous item, lawmakers will not longer use budget projections to create budgets. Too often the projections are wrong, or are misleading, to allow higher spending and balancing the budget for signature only to see revisions later in the fiscal year. All budgets going forward would be based upon prior fiscal year revenues--you can't spend what you did not collect. The current budget crisis is worsening because of the spending built into the budget and a complete failure to accurately predict revenues for the current fiscal year. I realize this proposal has a one year lag time; we are already spending fiscal year 2008-09 revenue leaving none for FY 2009-10. Therefore a special bond would be floated to provide revenue for the first fiscal year of the new budgeting process. Every budget for the next fifteen years would first carve out funds to pay down the bond from revenue collect the prior year before any other spending items are placed in the budget.

Negotiate with public employees: a lot of job losses or fewer job losses. California has 235,000 employees, does anyone really feel everyone of those jobs is necessary? As charitas dictator I approach each of the public employee unions and offer them option A or option B, their choice: Option A is the elimination of 15% of the jobs represented by that collective bargaining unit. Option B is the elimination of 10% of the jobs and those who remain will have new contracts reducing benefits and limiting salary increases to be the same formula used to allow for increases in the budget. Benefits would change such that all employees would contribute on par with those contributions in the private sector to retirement accounts: the state will match 50% of your personal contributions up to a maximum amount that equals the limits imposed on private sector employees. Medical benefits would be paid based on the MediCal rates of coverage; our state is already insuring and paying for the medical benefits of millions of Californians, if this insurance is good enough for them it should be good enough for the 200,000 plus public employees. If an employee wants private insurance they will be credited the amount of the insurance premium payments equivalent to the MediCal premiums. These reforms are enacted for all state employees, not just those who are union members, but anyone who receives a check from the State of California.

No more state resources used to collect political donations. The state will not longer allow payroll deductions to collect donations made to the political units of the employee unions. The state will not pay for the accounting, collection and distribution of funds used to elect individuals to public office. Public employee unions must collect their political donations directly from the individual union members not from the state through their paychecks.

Reform MediCal so it is equal through the state. There is so much institutional dysfunction in the MediCal system that wastes so many millions of dollars that it is hard to know where to begin; so let's over simplify the program. First, all hospitals will receive the same reimbursement for the same treatments, no more tiered payouts depending on where the hospital is located or whether the hospital is contracted with MediCal--the same for payments to doctors and other health care providers. If it is mandatory that anyone walking into any hospital be treated then it should be required for the state to reimburse all health providers equally. This alone will eliminate the need for a huge amount of staff that is currently utilised to review and deny claims, process appeals, approve claims, cut the reimbursement, all on a patient by patient basis. If a hospital or health care provider is found to have engaged in fraud then immediately begin fraud prosecutions, and put in place a leadership team to ensure the hospital stays open. This single pay provision will also save hospitals and health care providers up and down the state hundreds of millions of dollars in personnel costs used for accounting the current complex MediCal system of payments. It will benefit patients in that they will not have to be transferred from non-contracted to contracted hospitals and no matter what hospital they go to in the state they can expect the same level of care.

Reform the education system. Eliminate the mandates for programs that create a one fits all mentality. Cut the State Department of Education in half and push the savings down to the local school districts. Allow the school districts to have more control over their budgets and how they wish to spend their revenues. Using standardized tests, if districts fall behind take over the district and slowly re-integrate local control; such as occurred with Compton Unified School District in recent years. Put more control closer to the parents through their local school boards and Superintendents. With increasing power in Sacramento we have decreasing opportunities and programs for our children, we need to reverse that trend.


Encourage department managers to succeed and reward success. Too much money is added to our budgets to maintain prior years' funding, whether the funds are needed or not. Reward department managers who are able to show year after year after year savings with financial incentives. Allow managers to present five year plans for projects and place into their budgets funds to save for future expenditures for capital improvements. Allow managers of our public funds to operate as their counterparts are allowed to operate in the private sector, plan for success and reward success. Our current system does not bring accountability into the management of public funds nor does it allow for long term planning; managers are operating on a year to year basis without encouragement to be innovative or creative in product delivery. Changing the culture will encourage more entrepreneurial management and will attract individuals who thrive in such an environment.

Cut taxes. Roll back the sales tax by 2.5% across the board. Roll back auto registration fees by 10%. Cut the income tax rates by 1.5% for every level and raise the income levels for each tier so they more closely match those at the Federal level. You cannot tax your way out of a recession. Study, after study, after study shows that raising taxes cuts revenue, lowering taxes raises revenue. Look at the states that have done well during our recession and you will see states that are attracting businesses and jobs because of their low tax rates. Even during the economic growth from 2002 through 2007 California's business community grew slower than most states. Taxes are killing job development and growth in this state. We need to attract wealth and investment, we do that by allowing success to accrue to those who succeed.

Drill for oil. Open the coastal oil fields for development and extraction. Follow the leadership of Governor Sarah Palin in Alaska and the deals negotiated with the oil companies to extract oil and natural gas from her state. For the Palin haters ignore who and concentrate on the results, a tremendous spike in revenue for the State of Alaska. California is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue that could benefit our state, unfortunately a small minority has been allowed to deny those funds to the people of California. I find it appalling that the Legislature and Governor find it okay to throw a huge tax burden on the families of this state but refuse to extract the millions of dollars of revenue sitting right off our shores.

Sue the Federal government. Require providers of service receiving state funds to document whether the recipients are legal residents of the United States. If they are not then send a bill to Washington D.C. Prisons, hospitals, schools, law enforcement are all expending resources to pay for services provided to illegal aliens allowed into this country by lax federal enforcement of our borders. Take the Feds to court and recoup the billions spent by California tax payers every year as a result of the problems created by Washington's inability, or refusal, to address this problem.

Require and accounting and spending of money from Propositions. We have billions of dollars that have gone unspent because of voter passed initiatives; from stem cell research, to Rob Reiner's cigarette tax, to fixing the Delta to avoid a Katrina type collapse, to countless other propositions passed and funded but not accounted for to see if the projects have been completed or even worked upon. Every proposition that requires bond funds would also have an audit component for review every two years. If within five years at least half the funds have not been spent to accomplish the purpose of the proposition then the funds are returned to the State, the bond is paid off and the project(s) shut down. There is no accountability for any of the funding for the multitude of propositions passed by the voters, seemingly on a whim. Most of the spending propositions benefit a very narrow segment of the population, make them accountable for the funds or they lose all of them.

Keep the two-thirds majority requirement. I would not change the requirement that all budgets and tax increases require a two-third majority vote in the Assembly and Senate. One can imagine the budget problems we would be having if it were not for this rule and if the Democratic majorities in both houses had the ability to pass budgets with a simple majority. Only the hold out of Republicans have lowered the tax increases from initial Democratic proposals and lessened the spending in the proposals. Unfortunately every year the necessary two or three Republicans have eventually jumped over the line and allowed the horrendous budgets of the past decade to pass. Removing the two-thirds obstacle will remove any filter on the budgeting process.

Given the ideological bent of this state and the control the public employees have I am certain that these proposals would probably fail in any general election, which is why I would have to enact them as the Charitas Dictator, or Benevolent Dictator. For our budget problems in this state to be solved in the short and long term we will need someone, or more likely several someones, to have the courage to stand up and loudly proclaim specific solutions to our problems.

We Are Californians Not Colonists

In 1765 the British Parliament passed the Stamp Act, a tax which was imposed only on the American Colonies. The purpose of the tax was to fund the presence of the British military in the American Colonies, where they remained after the conclusion of the French and Indian War. While later repealed, the Stamp Act was a major factor in coalescing the American Colonies into a single political unit for the purpose of fighting the Stamp Act and other taxes later imposed on the American Colonies by the British Parliament. The British saw the Colonies as a source of revenue and also a source of geopolitical advantage in spreading their control across the American Continent using the British Army and Navy now garrisoned in America.

Of course the most important phrase to come out of the Stamp Act was the rallying cry that began in Boston and spread through the Colonies, "No Taxation Without Representation." And Representation began with every colony sending representatives to Philadelphia which later became the Continental Congress; which as we know later became the Constitutional Congress and still later the Congress of the United States of America.

Now we find ourselves in the 21st Century on the far side of the North American Continent from the original American Colonies in the State of California. Like the 18th Century American Colonists citizens of California are finding themselves subject to increasing amounts of taxation to support what they see more and more as a foreign government, when in fact it is the government of their own making. And like 18th Century American Colonists more and more Californians are feeling their taxation is coming without representation, when in fact they cast the actual votes that have elected those passing the taxes. Juxtaposing a more modern phrase with that of the American Revolution, if perception is reality than in many Californian households there is taxation without representation.

There are numerous factors that have led our State Legislature, abetted by the signature of whomever held the Governor's office, to the current state of financial collapse in state finances. The most basic and over-riding cause has been the explosion of spending in Sacramento over the past ten years or more that has doubled the size of the California government expenses. This has been enabled by the combination of term limits and gerrymandered legislative districts which ensured not only a Democratic majority for both the State Assembly and Senate, but ensured further that each District is so gerrymandered that only the most Democrat of Democrats or Republican of Republicans stand any chance of getting elected in the jigsaw shaped district they represent.

Further compounding the issue has been the question of representation. Who exactly have the Legislators in Sacramento been representing? The middle income families who are paying the highest income tax rate in the nation? The lower income families who are paying the highest sales taxes in the nation? The children in the State's public schools who while having the highest paid teachers in the nation score near the bottom in standardized tests? The business owners who have been taking their businesses out of the state, and during the sustained period of economic growth from 2002 through 2007 did not open new businesses in our state? Are any of these groups represented by the budgets passed in each of the past ten fiscal years by our Legislature? The answer is no, and because of that we ask, do we have taxation without representation in the State of California?


We get what we elect and the majority of Californians have blindly followed the path of campaign ads, political flyers and what the letter is inside the parentheses on the ballot--for the Legislature if there is a (D) then it gets elected in almost 60% of the State. And who funds that (D)? Prison guards who created the most expensive prison system in the United States. Teachers' unions who have the largest amount of spending on education in the United States and the highest teacher salaries. Unions representing almost all of the 235,000 state workers from Chula Vista to Redding, the most of any state in the United States. Year after year, election after election these groups have poured millions of dollars into state political campaigns, almost exclusively funding the candidates of one party, and year after year we have seen budget after budget paying these groups back with increased numbers of employees, higher salaries and higher benefits. And now the people of California are waking up to the reality of what has happened to them.

The Governor and other officials up and down the State have been on a tour trying to scare the people into voting for Propositions 1A through 1E on Tuesday. The message is the same, if we do not pass these measures we will face an even greater budget deficit. We will have to lay off some government workers (at latest count about 2%), we will have less money for schools, for prisons, for the fixing of infrastructure.

What they do not say in these Scare Rallies is the even if the voters do pass Props 1A-E, and increase the highest taxes in the nation for even longer, if we will still have deficits in the coming years because of the massive give-aways in the previous ten budgets. None of these Propositions unravel any of the previous spending or contracts, all they do is perpetuate them.

Just as the Colonists formed the Stamp Act Congress which eventually led to the Declaration of Independence, the People of California need to band together and overthrow the ideas of those who govern us. We need to defeat everyone of the Propositions on the ballot and force our Legislature and Governor to address the real problems we face: too much government, too much government spending and too much of our hard earned money that is taken from us in taxes going to pay too many people salaries and benefits that are too high.

It is time for the people of California to quit enabling Sacramento while disabling our schools and communities and future.

Vote NO on Propositions 1A through 1E. Tell every elected official in the State "No more taxes, no more spending."

California Math: Double Spending = Cutting Funding

After writing my post earlier this week on the inability of school districts to remove bad teachers I began to think of the lack of control our local school districts really have. It seems the closer one is to the student the less control there is in the education and the decisions relating to it. The control and direction of funds is upside in my view. The on-site administrator, the principal, has almost no budget control; the local school superintendent is pushing money into boxes established by the State Department of Education; and the State funding and spending is also dependent on the Federal Department of Education. The person closest to the student has the least say in what programs may be needed at a school and what programs are not needed.

This has evolved because of several factors, primarily because our education system has evolved into one size fits all. This results in mandates and programs that must be implemented for students in rural Turlock as for urban San Francisco. Not trusting school districts to properly care for the children in their own communities, the state mandates how funds are to be spent restricting the maneuverability local school boards and superintendents need to fit their students in their district.

In the background of this is of course the budget, which is actually in the foreground. I am having a very hard time understanding how our State Legislature has passed budgets that have doubled spending from Sacramento in the past ten years, yet my local district is cutting programs that existed ten years ago. How bad is your government when it doubles in size across the state in a decade, but the programs available to your children ten years ago have to be eliminated because of lack of funding from the state? It speaks to the corrupt culture that is so pervasive in our election and budget process that those public employees' organizations who have donated so many millions across the past decade to elect the majority of our legislators have received raises and increased benefits in budget after budget, yet at our local school we are raising money to retain a computer lab instructor.

I will beat this drum again, and again, and probably several more times, the California voter has no idea what he or she is voting for when punching a ballot. Every single summer we go through the same budget crisis and some time in July or August or even September a few Republicans will cross the line and vote for another budget that increases spending in California--but not in the classrooms. Raises will be given to prison guards, state sanitation workers will be given higher retirement benefits and a guaranteed no lay off clause, Assembly aides will be promoted and paid well into six figures, and no voter will bat an eye to vote for the same person in the next election. All of this abetted by first Gray Davis and now Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In Long Beach the district has had to cut the science camp trip for fifth graders, a rite of passage in the culture of the district, as I said our campus is raising $50,000 to retain a full time computer lab teacher, other friends say they are losing Spanish instructors, or physical education (we already lost ours), or what music or art instruction they may have. Program after program is being cut from a budget that is getting less and less funding from Sacramento despite the doubling of the budget in the past ten years.

The new math in California: double spending while cutting funding. And we can expect it to continue because the public employee organizations will poor millions more into the coffers of our elected officials, primarily Democrats--or I should say exclusively--who will pass more budget items favoring the employees over the citizens, favoring their salaries and job security over children's education.

Our system is truly broken and needs to be fixed. For education my proposal is to release the mandated spending from the state and give funds to the districts. Then let the districts determine how best to put the funds into the classroom. Release control of education back to the local community. If a district is failing and it is evident the funds are not being spent in a way that is educating the children of its community then the State can step in with a program to rehabilitate the district. But do not make every district suffer because of the few who may mismanage their funds. We already have classes that tend to teach to the lowest common denominator, let's not have funding on the same principle. If Turlock feels more funding is needed in language arts and less in music let them spend their funds to support this, if Capistrano wants higher math scores and less funding for language arts let them spend their money how that community sees best for its students and its needs.

With the placing of Propositions 1A-F on the ballot the Governor and Legislature have shown the California people they have no clue how broken the system is, what is very scary is they have shown the people they have no clue how to fix the system either. The only way to force it to be fixed is to break it further--and the start to the fix must be returning control of funds for education to the local school boards, to the communities that paid the taxes should go the control on how they are spent. Take control away from the special interests in Sacramento and bring it back to parents and communities.

Why Are Millions of Dollars Spent to Protect Bad Teachers?

On Sunday (5/3/09) The Los Angeles Times had a major front page article by Jason Song detailing the job security teachers have in California once they obtain tenured status. This article is a must read for every adult in the state.

For parents the article pulls back the curtain showing some of the bureaucracy which controls your children six or seven hours a day, one hundred eighty days a year for thirteen years. It reveals the lack of control over the teachers by you a parent, and by your representatives elected to your local school board. Most basically it shows once again how important is your vote in school board elections to ensure independent members of your community are elected to represent you, the parent, and thwart any efforts by your local teachers union or the state organization to control your school district.

For elected school board members it is a wake up call to get stronger rules for dismissal in their contracts with their teachers' unions. Reading the Times article detailing case after case of incompetent, or worse borderline sexual predator, teachers retaining their jobs for years while districts go through the process to dismiss them one wonders why we even have school boards at all. If an employer cannot take measures to ensure the safety, physical and emotional, of its charges from its employees then the system is broken. School boards across the state need to restructure their contracts to eliminate most of the process needed to dismiss teachers currently being protected by their unions and they processes installed in their collective bargaining contracts.

For members of our State Legislature this article is a wake up call that the gig is up. The relationship between the teachers' unions across the state and by the huge statewide umbrella to which most of the locals tithe, the vaunted California Teachers' Association, and funds funnelled from teachers' paychecks to the Democratic Party, its candidates and propositions it supports is evident. And thanks to the Los Angeles Times article, many parents will begin to see the correlation to the candidates supported by the unions and the inept teacher who may be teaching their child. Voters will begin to connect the dots between the over-protective laws handcuffing their district administration preventing them from firing the teacher making lewd and lascivious comments and actions to their daughter. As part of the upcoming process to break down and untangle the relationships and spending mandates that have led our state to a financial abyss, pressure should also be put on the legislature to change the laws restricting the ability of bad teachers to be dismissed.

As for teachers, this article begins to crack the veneer they have ably constructed that has held them as a protected class above criticism because of the noble profession in which they engage. The connection between their unions and the buying of officials enacting laws protecting bad teachers at the expense of our children is fully exposed. Millions and millions of teachers' salaries have been collected through automatic payroll deductions and syphoned to candidates and propositions without any real input for the majority of teachers. And the results are disastrous for those in the profession as evidenced by the budget cuts throughout school districts throughout the state. Propped up by millions of dollars every election the large majority in Sacramento has spent, spent and then spent some more until we arrived at our current budget crisis. Every school district budget cut can be laid at the feet of the number one contributor to those currently in office in Sacramento: teachers' unions. Spending millions to elect anyone with (D) next to their name. Los Angeles Unified is looking at laying off perhaps a thousand teachers or more--whose fault is that? The same people whose elections to office in Sacramento were paid for by those teachers being laid off.

The average teacher when asked about their political contributions or their local union politics typically replies, "I don't get involved in that." And they don't, they just blindly tithe to the apparatus that has screwed them with budget cuts and allows bad teachers to be in the classroom next to theirs. The system is broken, and it was broken by those who are supposed to look after the best interest of all teachers and work with our communities to instruct our children. It was broken by organized labor in conjunction with their political allies who cared more about the power of the whole instead of the good of the community.

Our teachers' unions have way to much power in our state. Voters need to stand up and take back their school boards and insist their elected officials protect their children first and teachers' second. There is no excuse for a pedophile or totally incompetent teacher standing in front of your child for six hours a day--and s/he will remain there as long as the CTA and its locals retain the control they have on our state political systems.

Should a local school board hold firm in negotiations at contract time to make it easier to dismiss those teachers who clearly need dismissal you can count on the local union to spend significant amounts of funds in a public relations campaign vilifying the school board. They will spend the funds of the many, many, many quality educators who are their members to protect the few who deserve no such protection. Vocal members of the local will campaign on campuses and at meetings pulling out the "woe are we the teachers" argument, and many of those voices will be from some of those being protected.

As a parent of children in the Long Beach Unified School District I am willing to undergo some short term pain for long term gain. If the LBUSD board draws a firm line in negotiations demanding easier resolution to dismissals that save time and needed funds for the district and more quickly eliminates bad teachers I will support them. If the Teachers Association of Long Beach, the local union, makes this a strike point and threaten to walk out over the issue I say: let them. Let the union take the position of closing down the district to spare the jobs of a few teachers. Let them show the public, their members and the students they would rather every student suffer than allow a few bad teachers be eliminated from the classrooms.

It is time for parents and the voters to take back control of the education of our children and wrest as much of that control away from Sacramento where control has been usurped by the CTA. Contact your local school board representative and tell him or her: I support you, change this insidious process.

Do The Math On Taxes

Math Problem #1: Tax burden increase on Californians. Remembering all the rhetoric from Democrats the past several years about “the working family” and “saving/protecting the middle class” and the “working poor”, remembering their rhetoric let’s see how their huge tax bill they passed in Sacramento last week (with a few Republican accomplices) helped these families. There are tax calculators all over the web for you to put in your own numbers, here’s one to save you the Google search. If you take a reasonable middle class family, Mom and Dad both work—let’s say they are both teachers and while not new not yet at the average salary and make $45,000 each for a total of $90,000. They each have a car, let’s say a minivan and a small SUV or crossover worth about $25,000 each for a total of $50,000 and they also have two kids. Under the taxes just passed in Sacramento this family’s tax payments will increase by $1227.

Now let’s say there is a hip young professional with no kids, has his master’s degree and works for the state college system as a senior administrator pulling down $140,000 annually and drives a sporty BMW X5. With no kids and a higher salary the tax burden on this young man will increase $966 per year. Making 55% more money that our married family and with no children to support gives a tax advantage of $261 per year to Californians.

So next time you hear anyone from Sacramento talking about budgets and helping America’s or California’s families ask them if they voted for the tax increases in February 2009—if they are in office and a Democrat they did—and then know they could care less about families and “working people” as they are typically defined.

Math Problem #2: President Obama and the Democrats hit the national campaign trail hot and heavy in 2008 giving speeches about how they were going to also help the middle class and unless you were in the top 5% of income earners in the United States you would not see your taxes go up. This past week Obama began the tax talk and has spoken about increasing the marginal tax rate for America’s highest income earners to help pay down the deficit—including the $2 trillion they just added to the deficit with the Porkies I stimulus plan.

A few weeks ago Obama and Congress announced that they were going to cap the pay of individuals who are employed by firms who received TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program—the $750 billion bank and Wall Street bailout from October 2008) to $500,000. This was met with widespread applause and happiness from many in America who feel that if the banks have gotten $350 billion of tax payer money—never mind that it was traded for stock—that those in charge should have their income capped at a “reasonable level.” Given that the former head of Merrill Lynch was seeking a $10 million bonus for leading his company into an $11 billion loss and extinction the sentiment is very understandable. But the universe operates on cause and effect and not every plan is perfect.

This plan has a few flaws however and this is where some math will come in. First the caps also apply to commissioned individuals—those on commission get paid based on what they earn for the company. With the new caps after a very successful broker hits his $500,000 limit with say Chase he can/will quit and go to Citi and earn his next $500k taking his clients with him. What will occur is a huge merry-go-round of talented sales people through Wall Street brokerages as they maximize their personal income under the TARP compensation limits. But this is just part of the flaw. Let’s get to the math.

Under the current tax tables individuals earning over $372,950 are in the 35% tax bracket. So capping income at $500,000 caps the marginal tax amount on earnings over $372,950 at $44,500 to use round numbers ($500,000 – 372,950 = 127,050 x 35% = $44,500). Given the numbers on Wall Street I am going to use for my math problem the number that 200 individuals have earnings over $5,000,000 and work(ed) for TARP companies.
If there are 200 individuals with income of $5 million their marginal tax amount is $1,619,500 (rounded up $32.50) per person, or approximately $324 million collectively. With Obama’s compensation caps these individuals will now pay $9 million in marginal taxes in the 35% bracket, a loss of approximately $315 million to the Treasury. Sniffing around the internet my estimates of 200 individuals and $5 million is very conservative and it is likely the compensation cap imposed by Washington on Wall Street will result in a loss of income tax revenue far greater than $315 million. But at least we all feel good about capping what those greedy b**stards make! Right?

California Voters: Please Tax Me! Enrich Yourselves!

My friend John Greet has been very consistent for the past few years commenting on various blogs and websites, and now as a regular contributor to the Long Beach Post, that we as citizens deserve the government we get because that is who we elect. And he is right. Unfortunately, the minority must live with the bad decisions of the majority, as they see them, especially in the State of California.

California has a majority of voters registered as Democrat, and a shrinking minority (around 35%) of registered Republicans. With the exception of the Governor’s office, where the personification of a Rino holds office (Republican In Name Only), Democrats control the State of California from local through Federal offices. They were elected by the people, so they rule the people. Up and down the state we are in financial crisis due to the year after year after year increases in spending: new programs, new mandated spending for all levels, more employees, all have added up to budget deficits for public coffers.

It has become somewhat de rigueur to blame the national economic crisis on the budget problems, and to this I say “Bunk.” Particularly in Sacramento, the state was headed into financial crisis before any whiff of trouble was approaching the credit markets and Wall Street. Why? Because state legislators, enabled by our governor, kept spending more and more and more money. It has been well documented that the past several years when state tax revenue increased 20% our elected officials increased state spending 40%--and that is the fault of the national economy how?

So now the legislator and the governor have reached a compromise to balance California’s budget, they did so by raising taxes on the highest taxed people in the country by $14.4 billion per year—for up to five years. The reports say that there would be $15 billion in cuts—which many would take to mean cuts in spending. This is a ruse, spending by the State of California for the coming fiscal year will not go down $15 billion from the year before, in fact it goes up.

How does this happen? A budget is a projection of revenue and spending. If a department is budgeted to receive and increase in funding from $100 million from the current $90 million it receives now and instead the budget is revised to only increase the department’s budget to $95 million then that department can say, “Our budget was cut $5 million.” Sure, but you are getting $5 million more than you did before so your revenue has increased. This is happening all across the budget negotiations, and the $15 billion in cuts is consisted by almost half of it being no reductions in spending but rather cuts in the projected increases to departments and programs.

Only in Sacramento does it make sense to tax taxes, and that is what is in this budget proposal. If you pay the state $1000 in taxes the state is going to tax that payment, a “surcharge”, of up to 5%. So after you pay your $1000 you can add an additional check for $50. Already the highest income tax in the nation, the state of California will now tax its taxes—genius.

Gas prices too high, the highest in the Continental U.S. with the highest taxes at the pump? So what pay more, the proposal adds $0.12 per gallon. Already the highest sales tax in the country add an additional 1% to all your purchases that are taxed—and look for that list to expand.

So where does this $14 billion go? Well most of it will go to state and public employees since payroll is far and away the biggest item on every budget. And how many public employees are losing their jobs because of this budget? How much is the legislator and top level employees of the state seeing cut in their pay? State employees already enjoy more paid holidays than any other workers—currently 14 days off for paid holidays on top of their vacation and sick days. The proposal has deeply upset the public employees’ unions because it has the audacity to cut two of the paid holidays from their calendars, so now they get one paid day off every month on top of their vacation and sick days.

Looking back on my life I realize that perhaps the biggest mistake I made was not going to work for the State or a public entity when I graduated from college in 1984. I would now be approaching twenty five years of service and at the age of 46 be eligible for a very comfortable retirement package and still young enough to start a second career—most likely as a consultant to the state, counties or cities at higher pay than I received in salary. Because of the give aways over the years to the public employees unions they have incredible job security, you almost have to kill someone to get fired and even then the union would file a grievance, lifetime retirement and benefits and guaranteed pay raises as your union dumps millions of dollars into campaign contributions of the Democrats who control all the purse strings from El Cajon to Mendocino.

California voters will not learn their lessons. In 2010 up and down the ballot a majority will vote merely by looking for (D) next to someone’s name, or the name they are most familiar with after being inundated with flyers, postcards, mailers and phone calls paid for by the unions. You don’t think union money matters in California? Ask Jenny Orepeza why she lost to Laura Richardson for a seat in the United States Congress.

So we will continue to be governed by politicians suckling on the union teets for campaign contributions and looking for their next job when they are termed out. We will see more growth in government, more people subsisting on government hand outs, higher payrolls for government workers, and more taxes for the people of California.

We can stop this cycle. Call, write, email, knock on the door of every Republican legislator in Sacramento and tell them if even one of them votes to pass this proposal, or any proposal with tax increases, you will not give the party one cent, you will not vote or volunteer for any currently elected Republican, you will essentially help crash the party in this state (which looks like it has already happened).

We pay and the politicians get re-elected for more junkets, lunches, dinners and royal treatment from those buying their votes. John Greet is right, we deserve it.