Let The Light Shine In
By Jon Coupal
President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Tue, September 30th, 2008

Since the founding of our republic there has been tension between citizens who want to know about the conduct of their representatives, and those in government who would prefer to do their business in secret.

Secrecy is not always bad policy. Few would argue that Franklin Roosevelt should have revealed the invasion plans for Normandy prior to D-Day.

However, the responsibilities of most politicians are mundane and it is hard to argue that the public should be denied knowledge of how efficiently they are managing and spending taxpayers' dollars.

A major collision between the interests of the public in knowing how well they are being served by elected officials, and those of politicians who believe their stature should give them immunity from scrutiny is now taking place in Los Angeles. The side of full discloser is being represented by the city controller while the side of secrecy is being defended by the city attorney.

A 1999 voter approved charter reform gave the city controller the power to conduct performance audits of city programs and departments. This new authority was designed to provide the public with an idea of how well they are being served by city government.

Using this authority, Controller Laura Chick has worked tirelessly to open up the city's business to the light of day. Her audits have uncovered serious issues of inefficiency and waste and sometimes fraud. It was she who uncovered millions of dollars of fraudulent billing by a public relations firm hired by the city-owned Department of Water and Power. It was the controller whose investigations revealed disarray in the city's anti-gang programs and that only a third of the recently increased trash fee was actually used to hire more police, instead of all, as had been promised by city officials.

However, when the controller sought to conduct a performance audit of the Workers Compensation program managed by City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, he responded by filing suit in an attempt to block what he considers an intrusion into his affairs.

If the city attorney is successful in scuttling the controller's efforts to review how a multi-million-taxpayer dollar program is managed, it could have dire ramifications for average citizens who depend on the efficiency and integrity of city programs. Hundreds of millions of dollars are housed in programs in elected officials' offices including that of the mayor. If Delgadillo is successful in avoiding review of a program he manages, it could embolden other politicians to block public scrutiny of their work.

Too often we have seen government officials make decisions that are clearly not in the best interests of taxpayers but are intended to perpetuate a bloated and unwieldy bureaucracy or to serve outside special interests. The power to audit and shine a light in the deep recesses of City Hall is a potent weapon in trying to control the behemoth that is Los Angeles city government.

It is time to settle the question of the controller's authority once and for all by clarifying the charter with a vote of the people. This will require the Los Angeles City Council to put the clear definition of the controller's powers on the ballot for the next regularly scheduled city election this coming March. This is not about Chick, who is soon to be termed out. It is about maintaining the integrity of an oversight process that provides critical information to the public.

Already some council members are chiming in that the controller should not have the ability to conduct performance audits of programs housed in elected officials' offices. In response, taxpayers are asking who then will hold officials accountable for managing the millions of dollars they provide to the city? Do they really think the public supports having politicians run these programs beyond their view?

In the next few months the City Council should have a spirited and very public debate on this issue. In the end, no matter where a councilmember comes down on the issue of these auditing powers, they must let the voter, not the courts, make the ultimate decision

Global Warming Debate Should At Least Be Honest
By Assembly Budget committee Vice-Chair Roger Niello

When it comes to the issue of global warming, I am, admittedly a skeptic.  As I've written in the past, I struggle with the notion that global warming is entirely man-made, or even if it is, that there's going to be anything we can do to change its effects.  But these days, it seems that any skeptic is viewed as simply irrelevant.  After all, as many have said, the debate on global warming, ''is over.''  But should it be?

Global warming activists believe that severe cuts in emissions will move us towards saving the world from hotter temperatures, drought, and rising ocean levels.  They believe that governments all over the world must enact carbon taxes and stringent business regulations to prevent these calamities.  They talk highly of the ''example'' that California is setting for the world in enacting sweeping legislation, AB 32, that will require that we cut our carbon emission levels to those of 1990 by the year 2020. 

For purposes of this article, whether or not these things all turn out to be true is beside the point.  My frustration lies in the fact that an open and honest discussion of the consequences of these changes is quickly dismissed.   

On most issues, rational people generally care to at least consider the other side of an argument.  In the case of global warming regulation, why wouldn't we want to at least weigh the consequences of imposing broad, strict and costly regulations against saving our resources to mitigate the effects of that warming or to address other human ills that might be more important.  In other words, shouldn't we at least look at the question of whether global warming will have the dire consequences that most activists claim, or will the economic impacts of regulation and the effects on poor communities and developing countries be a potentially worse problem for humanity?  After all, if California is going to sail into these uncharted waters of carbon regulation, shouldn't we do it with our eyes wide open?

Recently, the California Air Resources Board released the draft AB 32 scoping plan that contains a ''framework'' for AB 32 implementation.  While the plan is vague and somewhat difficult to dissect, a cursory review of the plan should be alarming to anyone.

The plan makes it clear that whatever we do to implement AB 32, there will be a significant cost.  In a discussion of carbon emission fees, the Scoping Plan suggests that taxes and fees as large as $23.5 billion annually would need to be imposed on Californians in order to ''incent significant [carbon] reductions.''  And that number doesn't take into account the economic ramifications of closing down California factories that provide jobs or the increased costs of energy and food.  

While I am hopefully that the Scoping Plan will at least drive more discussion of the cost impacts that they will have on all of our communities, I have my doubts.  I have asked the Legislative Analyst's office to perform a detailed non-partisan study of the plan itself, but my fear is that any critical analysis of the plan will quickly be passed over.  There is reason for my suspicion. 

In the State Senate recently, an informational hearing on the AB 32 Scoping Plan was held which provided an opportunity for members of the public to discuss some of the issues and the affects that the proposed regulatory changes will have on the various communities within California .  When Pastor Robert Jones, a Methodist pastor from Sacramento's Oak Park testified as to the need for a study of the impact of AB 32 on lower income communities, one Senator told the Pastor that she thought his arguments were ''bulls***!''  Not only was this an embarrassing moment for the Legislature as an institution, it shows that an honest discussion of the economic ramifications of AB 32 is nearly impossible to have in today's highly charged atmosphere of global warming hysteria.
If the goal of environmental activists is to save human lives and the world's natural resources, we should at least have a discussion about whether there are less costly ways to do so.  It's at least worth studying whether it may be more cost effective to reinforce levees and construct more water storage facilities to protect homes and provide water than it will be to try to keep sea levels from rising and droughts from occurring. 

So, while I welcome an honest debate over how best to implement AB 32, I have my doubts that it will actually happen.

Civil Justice Association Honors Assemblyman Roger Niello

I'm pleased to announce that I was honored today by the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) with a Civil Justice Leadership Award for work during the 2007-08 legislative session. 

In addition to hosting workshops designed to education small business owners on complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act laws, I also authored legislation that would have strengthened laws against frivolous lawsuits.  CJAC President John Sullivan said, '' Assemblyman Niello has demonstrated a commitment to bring balance and fairness to our civil justice system to consumers, taxpayers, and businesses of all kinds.''

Founded in 1979, the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) works to reduce the excessive and unwarranted litigation that increases business and government expenses, discourages innovation, and drives up the cost of goods and services for all Californians. CJAC is the only statewide association working in both the Legislature and the courts to improve California 's civil justice system.

I'm proud to have received this award from such a great organization.  Everyday, CJAC fights on behalf of all Californians against frivolous lawsuits and excessive litigation that clogs our courts, hurts our economy, and prevents those who are legitimately wronged from accessing the justice system.

STATE BALLOT INITIATIVES – NOVEMBER 4 TH

Here is the Taxpayer League’s position on the twelve statewide propositions, as approved by the Board of Directors at the September 9, 2008 meeting:

Name of Issue - League Position

Prop 1A – High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act NO
Prop 2 – Standards for Confining Farm Animals NO
Prop 3 – Childrens Hospital Bond Act NO
Prop 4 – Pregnacy Issues no position taken
Prop 5 – Non-Violent Drug Offenses, Sentencing, Parole & Rehab NO
Prop 6 – Law Enforcement Funding, Criminal Penalties and Laws NO
Prop 7 – Renewable Energy Generation NO
Prop 8 – Eliminates Right of Same Sex Couples to Marry no position taken
Prop 9 – Criminal Justice System, Victims Rights, Parole NO
Prop 10 – Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Renewable Energy NO
Prop 11 – Redistricting YES
Prop 12 – Veterans Bond Act YES

LETTERS TO THE LEAGUE

We seek “Letters to the League” from Members concerning projects and issues on which we are working, along with recommendations on those we should look at. Letters may be edited and republished in any format, primarily in the interest of available space. Send letters, faxes, or e-mail to the Sacramento County Taxpayers League. Our e-mail is info@sactax.org, our telephone number is 916 399-5600, and our address is:

1620 35th Ave. Suite K
Sacramento, CA 95822

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE

Every week I just shake my head even more, when I read about the fraud and manipulation in the mortgage finance industry. How is it that so many people got caught up in this, in some cases well-to-do leaders in their own communities. And now we find that it's not just a domestic problem, it will effect other nations because of the complex worldwide flow of money today!

Some of those current problems actually stem all the way back to the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, passed by Jimmie Carter and a Democratic Congress. It required banks to offer mortgages in low income areas – sometimes without credit or job histories. If the banks didn't comply, they were accused of “redlining”. This progressed to the point that only a few years ago a house could be bought with practically no down payment, and no credit or job history verification!

Realistically, part of the blame for all this goes to Madison Avenue – way back at the end of WWII. That's right, that is when the real consumer push (with much of it on credit) began for cars, refrigerators, TV's, etc. You name it and were we told we needed it. After a few decades, it literally became the American Dream, and for some people an 'American Right', deserved by all, to have the nice things we saw on television. Then after a couple more decades, the push went beyond household and transportation items – we needed all those great 'toys' that evolved from the internet era. And guess what - savings went down and personal debt went up.

As the rest of 2008 unfolds before us, we may find out first hand what it is like to endure real economic suffering - right here in America.

CHEERS

To the state Republican Leadership for continuing to point out that California cannot continue to operate and survive with the continued deficit spending that has gone on since the Davis Administration. Many stated (including House leader Mike Villines, and Budget Vice Chair Roger Niello) that the Budget is still 'Smoke and Mirrors'. Will the liberal legislators who comprise the majority allow that to change? Stay tuned as California continues to sink into the Pacific Ocean. In fact, the way things are going, the Governor may have to change the name to the “Red Sea”!

JEERS

At the top of the list this month is the LA Unified School District (LAUSD). They make the term 'pork' look like the administrative norm.

From 2001 to 2007, the administrative staff grew 20% - at the same time enrollment dropped 6%, and 500 teaching positions were cut. The LAUSD has approximately 4000 administrators, managers and other non-school based employees, whose average salary is about $95,000 per year. One high level employee reported that "there are assistants to assistants". By contrast, District teachers earn an average salary of $63,000 per year.

While District employees spend their workdays in a very modern 29 story building in downtown LA, the Districts dropout rate is at 33.6%. Far higher than the statewide average of 24.2%.

And you thought the State Budget was bad!

Source, Los Angeles Daily News.

Bob Blymyer

<< Back to Index

Officers