by Ray Haynes Temecula

If there is any problem with government budgeting, it is how the government budgeting analysts approach their job. They always (not sometimes, not once in a while, not even frequently, but always) start the budget discussions with what they spent last year on a program by program basis. Take a look at the Governor’s Budget Summary I referenced in my last post on this item. Go to the Table of Contents. The first substantive item? 38 pages of “Summary of Major Changes by Major Program Area,” summarizing how much the change is spending on each program area is. There are then 8 pages of “Economic Outlook,” recognizing that government revenue is based on growth and activity in the private sector. Finally, on page 63 of an 85 page document, the analysts discuss revenue. Finally.

Want a real budget solution? Talk about revenue first. Analyze why revenue is dropping. Is it a “general economic malaise? Is it a government induced recession? Are government policies toward the private sector inhibiting private economic growth? What things can government do to enhance revenue growth in the private sector, thereby increasing revenue to government?

Take a look at Table REV-03 on page 69 of the Summary. We find that 10% of the taxpayers (those earning over $100,000) pay almost 90% of the taxes. So, what would be the best government policy? Figure out ways to increase the number of people in the state who earn $100,000 or more in the private sector (it will not increase revenue to the government if we increase the number of people who work for the government who earn 100,000 or more, and yet, that has been the policy of the state over the last several years).

So, if our first goal is to increase the number of private sector people in this state who earn $100,000 or more, will we accomplish that goal if we increase taxes on that group? Of course not. If we increase taxes on those who earn $100,000 or more, what will they do? They will move if the tax burden becomes too onerous. That is not conjecture, that is fact.

Here’s another interesting fact–if the economy in the private sector is good, Capital Gains revenue increase. Check out Figure REV-04 at page 69 of the summary. Now take a look at REV-05 on page 70, regarding the mental health tax (the 1% tax on millionaires), it is going down. It has dropped over $700,000 in the last two years. Why? Because we have fewer people in this state earning $1 million or more. Of course, one of the reasons for that is the tax. Want to save a minimum of $10,000 a year in taxes if you are a millionaire? Move out of California. And, by the way, they are.

So, the next discussion in the budget solutions meetings must focus on revenue first. How to improve the private sector economy in order to increase government revenue. A good starting point is looking at government regulations, taxes, fees, and other things that government does, to figure out how to improve the economy in the next year to increase revenue, since, quite frankly, those are the only things that government can change about the economy. If government is doing something that slows or stops growth in the private sector, it should stop doing those things, as quickly as possible. Government, particularly at the state level, can’t spend money to stimulate the economy. It can, however, do lots of things to make it easier for people to grow their own incomes and businesses. If government actually looks at those things, it may actually do more to solve a lot of the budget problems than it would solve by raising taxes on the people who are already looking for reasons to get out of the state. Just a thought. CRO

copyright 2009 Haynes

Ray Haynes is a former member of the California Assembly and the California Senate.

by Tom McClintock Sacramento | D.C.

Rep. McClintock gave the following speech in the memory of Army Spc. Jeremiah P. McCleery of Portola, CA, who as killed in action in Iraq. A version of this speech was delivered at a memorial for Spc. McCleery in Quincy on Memorial Day.

I rise today with the sad duty of recognizing the death in combat of Army Specialist Jeremiah P. McCleery, age 24, of Portola, California.

Mr. Speaker, if you read the observations of his friends you very quickly realize that this was not only an irreplaceable loss to his family and a monumental loss to his community – but also a terrible loss to our country.

Miah, as he was known, was simply a good kid.  He made friends easily, had a great sense of humor, and he had wanted to join the Army since he was four years old.

He was an exemplary soldier who commanded the friendship and respect of his colleagues.  He had fallen in love with a girl at Fort Hood before he shipped out, with their whole lives ahead of them.

A friend of his, Josh Rodgers, was asked when Miah McCleery was happiest and the answer was, “Doing anything with his dad.”

They had lost his mother, Collette, to cancer a few years ago.  His father, Joe, worked at a refuse collection company and later at a sheet metal business – and Miah was often at his side.

That same friend was asked why Jeremiah had enlisted.  The response, “He always wanted to when he was a kid.  He probably just wanted to out of patriotic duty and to serve.  I think he wanted to go do his part.”

The question first asked by James Michener, thunders across the countryside with a loss like this: “Where do we get such men?”

M. Speaker, I don’t know how to offer condolences to Miah McCleery’s family; to his father Joe; to his sisters Lynette and Chastity, and to his grandparents and friends.  The loss they bear is beyond my comprehension.

I can only offer my awe and gratitude that humanity has within itself a small band of brothers like Jeremiah McCleery who step forward not for treasure or profit nor even to defend their own freedom, but rather to win the freedom of a people half a world away.  And they do it because their country asks and because it is virtuous and noble.

A few feet from here in the Capitol Rotunda is a fresco called the “Apotheosis of Washington.”  It depicts Gen. Washington, in uniform, ascending to the heavens, flanked by victory and freedom, and surrounded by the essence and fruits of a free nation.  And in that depiction, Washington beckons.

From little towns like Portola, California, decent young men and women with promising futures like Jeremiah McCleery have answered.  And I don’t know where we get such men and I don’t know how their families can bear it.

But I do know what we owe them.  And I do know that we can never repay that debt, except to honor their memory and keep their sacrifice always in mind – those who gave up everything “To proclaim liberty throughout all the land, and unto all the inhabitants thereof.” CRO

Rep. Tom McClintock is a Member of Congress representing California’s 4th Congressional district.

by Burt Prelutsky Los Angeles

In recent days, my attention was grabbed by former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Yelena Bonner, the widow of Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov.

The one I applaud is the former Mrs. Sakharov.  In a speech delivered in Norway, she pointed out that the Palestinians are still being referred to as refugees even though only a tiny percentage of them have ever even set foot in Israel.  According to my dictionary, and I assume Ms. Bonner’s, a refugee is someone who has fled from violence and wars.  How on earth can the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who left Israel in order to avoid being killed or injured by the invading Arab forces in 1948, 61 long years ago, be regarded as refugees?

It reminds me of American blacks who, 45 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, continue to benefit from various programs such as Affirmative Action and Operation Head Start.  Is there no such thing as a statute of limitations, no point at which commonsense kicks in and people are permitted to say, “Enough is enough,” without being branded a villain?

Ms. Bonner pointed out that while every do-gooder group in the world seems to be concerned about the comfort level of Islamic terrorists at Gitmo, armed combatants who aren’t even covered by the Geneva Conventions because they don’t wear uniforms, carry a flag or even fight for a specific nation, nobody outside of Israel seems the least bit concerned about Gilad Schalit, the Israeli soldier who was abducted three years ago by Hamas.  She’s right, of course.  Our politicians don’t care, the U.N. doesn’t care, and God knows all those left-wing ACLU lawyers who are lined up eager to defend Islamic terrorists, up to and including Osama bin Laden, should he ever be captured, sure don’t give a damn.

That brings me to Colin Powell.  For reasons I can’t begin to imagine, he has taken umbrage at Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh for suggesting he’s not a Republican.  Frankly, I’m shocked that he continues to insist he is one.  I, for one, began doubting it years ago, when, as Secretary of State, he publicly opposed George Bush over the invasion of Iraq.  When, in 2008, he timed his endorsement of Barack Obama to do the most damage to John McCain’s campaign, I naturally assumed Mr. Powell had finally gotten around to changing his registration.  After all, if you can’t support McCain, who was about as close to being a Democrat as a GOP candidate could be, what Republican could Mr. Powell get behind?  Abe Lincoln?

I keep asking myself why, after supporting the most left-wing presidential candidate since Henry Wallace, the man would insist on calling himself a Republican.  Frankly, I’m stumped, but, human nature being what it is, it must obviously work to his benefit.

Well, at my age, I need every possible edge I can get.  Therefore, I am now announcing that I’m a Democrat.  Understand, I am opposed to the bail-outs and to the monstrous debt Obama is running up.  I am opposed to the feds taking over car companies, banks and lending institutions, and determining executive salaries.  I am opposed to Barack Obama’s cavalier attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program; his kowtowing to Arab princes, ACORN and the UAW; his activities on behalf of Harry Reid’s re-election campaign; his endorsement of a paramilitary organization that appears to be patterned on earlier models created by Hitler and Mussolini; and to his search for a “compassionate” Supreme Court justice.  I am also opposed to his bringing Cuban-style health care to the U.S., and I am opposed to the mind-boggling inflation that his profligate spending will inevitably bring to bear on all taxpayers, not just those super rich Americans he kept targeting, Che Guevara fashion, during his campaign.

What’s more, I’m not too crazy about a guy who names the family dog after his own initials.  I am curious, though, considering that Bo was a gift from Ted Kennedy, whether he drinks from a bowl or a bottle.

Finally, at the risk of sounding boastful, I’d like to say that I’m the best kind of Democrat.  I’m the kind who votes for Republicans. CRO

copyright 2009 Burt Prelutsky

Television scriptwriter, former humor columnist for the L.A. Times and a movie critic for Los Angeles magazine.

by Ray Haynes Temecula

Everyone talks about solutions to the budget.  I want to put a few out there based on real numbers.  The first thing to do is to look at real numbers, from an historical perspective, to determine what to do.  Our left wing friends don’t want to look at real numbers, and the moment anyone starts talking about those numbers, people everywhere start falling asleep, so I am going to try to make this short, and deal with the budget in light of those numbers.  This analysis will be in several short blog posts, but it is a good place for any one to start.

The first thing to do in any budget analysis is to go to Schedule 6 of the Full Budget Summary available on the Department of Finance’s website here.  Go to that page, and download the .pdf file.  Go to appendix 13, to which is attached Schedule 6).  It is titled Summary of State Population, Employees and Expenditures.  It shows a detail of the growth of state government since the 1950-51 budget year.

To put this summary in perspective, look at the numbers.  Between 1958 and 1974 (Governors Pat Brown and Ronald Reagan), this state built most of its University system (both UC and CSU), all of its freeways, most of its park system, most of its buildings, and had the best K-12 education system in the United States.  Our total state expenditures in 1974 was $8.3 billion general fund.  In that 20 year period, this state was dynamic, growing, “the Golden State.”  Total number of state employees=203,000.  In 1975, the Legislature enacted, and Governor Jerry Brown signed the Meyer-Milias-Brown public employee union act, which allowed for the formation of government employee unions.  Over the next 30 years, our transportation system collapsed, our education system went from the best to among the worst, and our state government has collapsed into a squabbling morass of self-serving politicians financed by corrupt government unions.

And what has happened to the state budget?  General Fund spending has increased from $8.3 billion to $102 billion, a 1200% increase.  The total number of state employees has increased from 203,000 to 359,000.  156,000 more employees, 1200% in spending for less government, less competence, worse services, and squabbling politicians.

Interesting enough, most of this growth has occurred over the last 10 years.  After 16 years of Republican governors, Deukmejian and Wilson, the number of state employees rose from 226,000 to 268,000.  Starting in 1998, when Gray Davis was elected Governor to today, the number of state employees rose from 268,000 to 363,000, double the amount in 10 years that Wilson and Deukmejian did in 16 years.  Spending rose from $54 billion general fund to $102 billion general fund, almost doubling.

These are the real numbers.  We are spending more and more in our government and getting less and less for it.  Real budget solutions have to recognize this basic fact.  Government employee unions and their bosses are the enemies of the people and the enemies of good governance.  They have been getting more and more money, and we have been getting less and less government.

Governor Schwarzenegger started out in 2003 with the right idea, and then he capitulated to interests in Sacramento.  His excuse was that he “had to get things done.”  He knew the status quo was the problem, but he capitulated to that status quo.  He could have used his influence to “terminate” those interests, as he promised.  Instead, he “capitulated.”  He became the lap dog to those interests, and, in the process, squandered his ability to form a legacy of reform.  He was no longer the “Terminator,” he was the “Capitulator.”  He grew government as fast as Davis, hired as many employees as Davis, hired Davis advisors, and, as a result, has suffered Davis’ fate.  A failed policy, a failed vision, and worst of all, a budget debacle of monumental proportions.  In my next writing, I will try to trace a pathway out of this wilderness, using those same numbers and a realistic assessment of what needs to be done CRO

copyright 2009 Haynes

Ray Haynes is a former member of the California Assembly and the California Senate.

by Ray Haynes Temecula

What happened yesterday was a good thing.  For too long, Sacramento has acted with contempt for the will of the voters, forgetting that the one-fortieth or one-eightieth of the state the Democrat legislator represents, after having been elected by less that 30% of the voters in that district (usually in the party primary) is not a mandate to expand government.  Voters hit the limit, and said so in resounding tones.

But this is no time for those of us who believe in small government to gloat.  We have not yet made our case that more government spending does not make for better government.  We do not have the money that the government unions have.  They are going to spend that money over the next six weeks to beat back any proposed cuts that are sure to come, and we dont have the resources to counter their propaganda.  The war is not over for them.  It never is.  We have won nothing yet.

I have been through election wins that were squandered when we fell asleep.  This is the time to wake up.  We have awoken the electorate.  They are ready to hear our message.  We need to double down now.  We need to step up our actions and activities.  We need to get loud.  We need to trumpet the cost of government, the waste of the government unions, the solutions to our current crisis.  We need to fight.

We will have few allies in this debate.  We dont know what the Governor is going to do yet.  The newspapers will not be with us.  The government unions will actively attack us and our positions.  The Democrats in the Legislature will ridicule us, and their hacks in the media will happily trumpet that ridicule.

But the fight is too important.  There are rare times in politics when the American people actually pay attention to what is going on.  Most of the time they are too busy living their lives to worry about their government.  This is one of the times they will listen.  Republicans need to be united behind the concepts of reducing the size of government, and actively opposing any tax or fee increases.  The leadership in Sacramento needs to go around the state and make their case in the 11 media markets throughout the state.  They need to be clear, and understandable.  No green eyeshades talk.  No budgetese (the foreign language of government budget experts).  They need to use their skill as communicators to lay out the case for small government, over and over again, to any who will listen, in a way that those who are listening will understand.

This is no time for gloating.  This is time for working.  There is a harvest to bring in, a harvest of voters who have grown disillusioned with the liberalism that has dominated this state for too long.  We need to work to bring it in.  If we do this right, we could be in 1994, all over again.  This time, we have to do it right. CRO

copyright 2009 Haynes

Ray Haynes is a former member of the California Assembly and the California Senate.

by Ray Haynes Temecula

I remember a meeting the Governor had with Assembly Republicans right after the 2005 special election debacle.  Remember that one?  The Governor raised millions of dollars for some mediocre initiatives (and one good one, elimination of agency fee), spent that money on mediocre ads prepared by mediocre consultants, who gave him bad advice (specifically they told him not to put anything on illegal immigration on the ballot because it would be too controversial, even though illegal immigration was the one issue that would draw out the voters the Governor wanted to the polls), and he lost, everything.

After that election, he said he had learned his lesson, and he completely capitulated to the Democrats.  He hired Susan Kennedy, one of the chief aides to the failed Governor Gray Davis (and one of the chief architects of his failures), began rolling over for Democrats, and began capitulating to the Democrats on every major issue.  He was no longer the terminator, he wasn’t even a Compromisinator, he was the Capitulator.  His capitulation to Legislative Democrats created the current fiscal crisis in the state, just as the capitulation of Gray Davis to the Legislative Democrats led to his collapse as Governor.  Those of us who tried to warn him that his spending spree in 05-06 and 06-07 would lead to a fiscal collapse were marginalized.  He told us we didn’t know what we were talking about, that we were wrong, the fiscal collapse wouldn’t come.  I once told one of the few Republicans left in the administration after the arrival of Kennedy, that I really wanted this Governor to succeed, and that he was sowing the seeds of his own destruction.  I was told that if I wanted to Governor to succeed, I should just shut up and go along.  I just couldn’t do that.  I thought that maybe someone would listen if I could convince the Governor and his staff that my criticism was borne out of a desire to protect the Governor.  The response I received was to threaten my political career and tell me I would never get a Governor’s appointment.

Now that the strategy of capitulation has collapsed, both in policy and at the polls, here is the question–Will the Governor do the same thing on Wednesday that he did after the November 2005 special election?  Will he stand up and say he was wrong, that he learned his lesson, that the state’s trouble actually resulted from poor spending decisions of the past, and the only way to get real fiscal reform is stop spending? To move to a zero base budgeting system? To do actually and real reductions in spending, not borrow, deceive and hide to maintain current spending levels?  Will he propose an honest budget that reduces spending to around $88 billion, and tries to inhibit the power of the government unions?

He abandoned conservatives in 2005 with the claim they led him to the special election debacle of that year (even though we advised him against the strategy that was used in that election).  Will he abandon the liberals in Sacramento, who have effectively ended his political career by pushing him into making some very bad fiscal decisions?  When he listened to conservatives, he didn’t get all he wanted, but he accomplished things.  When he listened to his moderate friends (as he did in the special election of 2005) and the liberals (as he has ever since then), he looked foolish.  Will he finally see what really caused his political failure? Or will he scapegoat us again, and continue with his foolish political strategies?

I don’t know.  I still want this Governor to go out a success.  I really do like the guy, no matter what he thinks.  I think he has had bad advice from bad advisers, and no one has had the intestinal fortitude to tell him that.  No one stands up to him to challenge his assumptions, and his advisers do not have his best interests at heart.  He is where he is because he has surrounded himself with people whose advice has been intended to advance their political agenda, not the Governor’s political future.  He has paid the price for that, in his popularity and in his policies.

If history repeats itself, the Governor will come to the table and say Tom McClintock told me this would happen, and now I want to listen to those who warned me of this crisis.  I doubt that he will do that, but he should.  He might just leave office with his reputation intact if he does. CRO

copyright 2009 Haynes

Ray Haynes is a former member of the California Assembly and the California Senate.