Following his recent Tour around California rather than giving a dismal State of the State address, Gov. Newsom announced three words as the crux for 2023: Return, restore, and rebuild.

He should have taken High Speed Rail around the state – except it isn’t built yet, under “construction” since 2008 when voters were convinced to approve Proposition 1A, a $9 billion bond to build a high speed rail system. However, high-speed rail has become nothing more than a pipeline project for grabbing big (taxpayer) money and is a big deceit on voters and taxpayers. I’ve been covering this for many years. State lawmakers and CHRSA officials have treated the largest public works project in the state’s history as if it’s a design-as-you-go bathroom remodel.

And really, why would voters invest in technology that’s been around for over a 100 years?

Prop. 1A states, “The high-speed train system shall be planned and constructed in a manner that minimizes urban sprawl and impacts on the natural environment.” It also stated “The California High-Speed Rail Authority must have all of the the funding ahead of time, before any construction starts on a new segment.”

Oops.

Outlining what he plans to do in California in the next year, Gov. Newsom first stopped in Sacramento to announce the delivery of 1,200 small homes to Los Angeles, San Diego County, San Jose, and Sacramento — “free of charge and ready for occupancy.”

As the Globe pointed out last week, California has more than 170,000 homeless transients living on the streets, and the governor and Mayors are all excited about 1,200 tiny homes. Sacramento has more than 11,000 homeless, and the Capitol City will be getting 350 tiny homes “for free.” Woot! Woot!

Free of charge? Really? Aren’t taxpayers the permanent cash register for Newsom’s give-away programs?

The Governor next traveled to San Quentin State Prison – where he announced it would be converted soon to become “San Quentin Rehabilitation Center,” rather than the maximum-security prison which has been home to the largest “death row” in the United States. This is because Newsom is emptying out California’s prisons so he can close them.

In May 2021 during the Covid pandemic, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced he would let another 76,000 prisoners out of state prisons – on his own authority through Executive Order – as violent crime was spiking in California’s cities.

As then-Senator Jim Nielsen said, “Violent felons are receiving good time credit for simply breathing, in lieu of demonstrated good behavior and rehabilitation.”

Thanks to Gov. Newsom’s executive order, the CDCR has been expanding “good time credits” without criteria to justify early release of dangerous inmates.

Gov. Newsom then traveled to Downey, CA where he announced California will make $30 insulin available. However, critics noted many drug makers have already been capping max prices per month for insulin. As the Globe reported, according to Sage Thompson, a prescription drug supplier liaison, “The California CIVICA deal isn’t groundbreaking like Newsom is trying to claim. It’s just the latest company severely reducing costs. You know, costs were super high for many, people spoke out, federal agencies stepped in, and costs went way down while also not screwing over the companies. In a nutshell, that’s what has happened. California isn’t really special here, although Newsom is making it sound like he is the white knight in all of this.”

“The Governor concluded his tour at a hospital in San Diego, where he proposed a 2024 ballot initiative to improve how California treats mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness,” Newsom’s press statement announced.

Announced on Thursday, Senator Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh (R-Yucaipa) and California Legislative Republicans, pushed for and just got approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, an audit on the $20+ billions of dollars the Newsom administration (and Gov. Jerry Brown before him) has spent on the homeless crisis.

Another ballot initiative with the accountability of High Speed Rail is just another slush fund for California’s Homeless Industrial Complex. And Gov. Newsom knows this.

Whether it’s the $30 billion in voter-approved water bonds which have not led to two approved reservoirs being built, or even more water storage, or it’s the several hundred billion dollar High Speed Rail slush fund, which 15 years later, still has no train running on tracks with passengers, or Newsom’s mental health ballot initiative “will lead to $1 billion every year for housing, treating substance abuse disorders, behavioral health housing and other community-based residential solutions to provide an ongoing source of funding for new settings.”

The goal of “providing an ongoing source of funding for new settings” is open ended language for a never-ending stream of funding paid for by California taxpayers.

As Dan Walters said in his Sunday column, “Newsom displays penchant for shiny new things on California tour,” rather than tackling head-on, the actual serious problems in California.

California is running an historically large budget deficit, yet Newsom proposed more programs, more billions in spending, more flash and glam and “shiny new things,” while showing voters he is incapable of doing the hard work once he rolls up his sleeves for camera ops.

The post Gov. Newsom’s Whistlestop Tour of California on High Speed Rail Boondoggle appeared first on California Globe.

Not exactly known for its adherence to timelines and budget, California’s High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) recently released its 2023 project update that – again – adjusts both.

While the timing changes are small – the Merced to Bakersfield segment is now – at best –  slated to start carrying passengers in late 2030, the budgetary modifications are more significant.

The HSRA is about $8 billion short to finish that same segment.  While it seems to have a financial handle-ish on the current building from Shafter to Madera, it still needs to find the cash to build the “connections” from Shafter to Bakersfield and from Madera to Merced.

To that end, the update repeatedly mentions the need for new federal funds and a dedicated source of state funding for decades to come.

The report states that “(C)urrently, state and local funding alone are not enough to achieve our goal…”

The overall LA to SF project budget is now estimated as being up to (if the past is anything to go by it will get there and beyond) $128 billion, up from a bit more than $100 billion last fall.

For comparison, in today’s dollars the transcontinental railroad cost about $3 billion.  

The report itself makes questionable comparisons, like the Saint Lawrence Seaway has taken 250 years (older than the United States itself?) to finish and that freight rail has had 200 years to figure out its financing.  To clarify for the HSRA– the extant seaway project took about six years to complete in the 1950s though, admittedly but still a good 60 years off, the first canal to bypass Niagara Falls was privately built in the 1830s.

As for potential private funding, the 117-page report mentions the concept in a single paragraph:

“It is not a matter of whether the Authority will pursue private partnerships, but when. The Authority believes that private sector partners will invest in the construction and operation of the system once risks, returns and system operations are better understood and more advanced than where they are today.”

In other words, it’s never going to happen.

HSRA CEO Brian Kelly was also rather blunt in the need for more public money: 

“If policy makers choose to deliver high-speed rail beyond the Central Valley, funding commitments for high-speed rail will have to be permanent and substantial at both the federal and state level, as was the case starting in the 1950s for highways,” Kelly wrote in the introduction.

The report itself follows up with: 

“Additionally, connections to the Bay Area and Southern California remain unfunded. If policy makers choose to deliver high-speed rail beyond the Central Valley – in California and nationally – funding commitments for high-speed rail will have to be permanent and substantial.”

As to the use of the “If policy makers choose” phrase, it seems to be a not-so-veiled threat to shift blame directly to the legislature from the Authority itself for the disaster that is the project. The question then becomes if it is even legal to simply stop there and if it is legal to create a source of “permanent” state funding.

The original bond measure voters ruefully approved in 2008 – the one for a system from San Diego to Sacramento (including LA to San Francisco) for about $33 billion – was explicit in its ban on permanent supportive state funding (the billions in cap-and-trade money the HSRA has received for some reason doesn’t count…go figure) and in its primary purpose – LA to SF in about 160 minutes.

The update broadly hints at not being able to abide by either stricture, though it does reference looking for federal and even state grant funding in non-traditional areas such as trying to snag some of the funds set aside for port improvements and even looking into obtaining, of course, “social equity” grants.

In a fascinating side note, it seems the HSRA cares more about its “partners” than the people of the state, specifically noting that completing at least the Merced-Bakersfield segment needs to occur because “(W)e owe this to our federal partners and we are going to see it through.” 

It fails to mention any ethical debt to anyone or anything else.

The new ridership projections (note – all numbers related to this project should be taken with a San Francisco Bay pond of salt) now expect a steep drop in people (from 50 million to 31.3 million annually) actually using the train…when it is built…if it is built.  

This drop can in part be explained by the Authority’s reduction in its future state population estimates; in 2012 its population estimate for 2040 (the project’s “horizon year” post LA to SF completion) was 51.5 million – it is now 42.6 million (note – if that trend is correct, California will significantly lag behind projected national growth and almost assuredly lose another congressional seat in the next census, and maybe another in the “horizon year” of 2040.)

Despite this drop, the Authority says, the project will still be operationally “profitable” and still means it will carry more people than AMTRAK does in the Northeast Corridor between Washington, DC and Boston.

This ridership comparison – like the comparisons made to Japanese high speed rail systems seems a bit on the optimistic side.  The northeast corridor, often nicknamed Bosnywash, has more than 52 million residents and sees about (pre-pandemic and almost back to that level now) about 14 million total riders.  Using those figures for comparison, the ridership numbers for California should be in the 10 million range, one-third of HSRA’s estimates.

On the bright side – if you a renewable energy fan – the update doubles-down on the plan to power the system entirely with solar panels along the route on Authority-owned land.

States the report: 

“The Authority is committed to operating the system on renewable energy – and the land we currently own along the early operating segment is a valuable asset for solar generation to support operations. We have initiated work on the conceptual design and financial modeling of a battery storage and solar generation project. The battery energy storage system, and solar photovoltaics at each of the traction power substations on the Merced to Bakersfield corridor, will be sized to offset the annual load from the operation of the high-speed trains in the corridor.”

Um, sure.

The update includes about $200 million to solarize the central valley segment and another $230 million to do the rest (it seems – the report is a bit fuzzy on that.)  As noted in the previously linked story, it would take – at least – about $3 billion to build the solar system and said system would have to cover about 16,000 acres.  

Unsurprisingly, it is currently unclear if the Authority has that much land in the track side linear strip it currently (mostly) owns and what are the exact challenges involved in building a solar farm that is 500 miles long and 100 feet wide.

Longer and harder indeed.

The post Longer and Harder: High Speed Rail’s Latest Plan Adds Time, Reduces Ridership appeared first on California Globe.

Under the California Constitution, there is a general right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies and the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Nonetheless, in enacting statutes, the Legislature can impose a limitation on the public’s right of access to these meetings or writings. It does so by make a finding and declaration that the limitation is justified.

In prior legislation, a simply statement was often used to explain the need for imposing this limitation. More recently, I have seen bills in the California Legislature that provide not only a detailed finding, but also a good introduction into that finding by explaining the purpose of the finding itself. The following is an example of what I am describing:

The Legislature finds and declares that Section 4 of this act, which adds Section 22425 to the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under a speed safety systems pilot program, the Legislature finds and declares that the photographic, video, or other visual or administrative records generated by the program shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impact of the use of speed safety systems, as required by this act.

At the end of the first paragraph, in boldface type that was added, is the more detailed introductory statement. This language demonstrates the Legislature’s understanding of the constitutional provision and the purpose for it, as well as the purpose for the forthcoming legislative finding. 

Thereafter, in the second paragraph, there is a thorough explanation of how the statutory provision is necessary and the legislative finding and declaration that justifies limitation on the public’s right of access. The above language is a good example of the better approach to take on these bills that deal with the public’s right to government writings and meetings. 

The post A Better Approach on Public Right of Access Findings appeared first on California Globe.

The three-day strike by Local 99 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a union representing The Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) approximately 30,000 employees comprising bus drivers, custodians, teachers’ aides, and food service workers has come and gone. The strike was supported by United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) which represents nearly 35,000 teachers, librarians, school nurses and counselors. 

The walk-out affected the 420,000 students and their families who comprise the second largest school district in the nation.

The strike ended Thursday with no deal having been reached, and negotiations continued in earnest. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stepped in to help facilitate and mediate negotiations, inviting school district and union leaders to L.A. City Hall to further discussions at what the mayor described as “neutral space.”

On Friday it was announced that a tentative agreement had been reached between the school district and the union which now awaits approval of union members. As is typical for any negotiation’s outcome, compromise by both sides was needed, yet predictable spin from the combatants and certainly from the mainstream media was immediately launched in order to claim victory in the aftermath of a rather vitriolic public relations war that had been ongoing since well before the strike was initiated.

SEIU had been pushing for a staggering more than 30% increase in wages, along with an increase in hours and health benefits for part-time workers, and an accelerated hiring program to address perceived staff shortages. On the other side, school district representatives presented a package that would include a 5% wage increase retroactive to July 2021, another 5% increase retroactive to  July 2022, and a 5% increase starting this July, in addition to an enhanced bonus plan. 

Ultimately, the negotiated agreement yielded a 6% wage increase retroactive to July 1, 2021, a 7%  increase retroactive to July 1, 2022, a 7% increase effective July 1, 2023, a $2 per hour increase for all employees effective January 1, 2024, and a new minimum wage of $22.52 an hour for all LAUSD workers. On average, the change in salaries for SEIU employees translates to an increase from $25,000 to $33,000 (the union was seeking $36,000)—a not so insignificant percentage increase, yet the union had to pass on many of the other contract items they were seeking.

Regardless of this contract outcome and which sides can claim victory, serious questions arise regarding the advisability of having public sector unions such as the SEIU, UTLA, et. al. in existence at all and their ability to collectively bargain and launch strikes against essentially the taxpayers of any given public jurisdiction.

In the case of the recent LAUSD strike, 420,000 students and their families were held hostage by public sector unions in a school district already beset by financial and other woes.  According to LAUSD superintendent Alberto Carvalho, what the union sought would have put the school district on the brink of insolvency. Also, the strike itself precluded many disadvantaged students from receiving necessary daily meals that their families count on. Most importantly, a school district still reeling from the effects of a Covid-induced school lockdown just could  not afford three more days of non-instruction. Arguably, the LAUSD is already a floundering if not failing district with ever-increasing taxpayer spending in spite of withering enrollment and diminishing student performance.

It is to be noted that the demographics of the American union have changed dramatically over the years. While at one time the predominance of union membership was mostly among private sector blue collar workers, the ratios have flip-flopped where now the greatest numbers are not only in the public sector but are also associated with white collar employees. It should be further noted that public sector unions were once illegal in the United States.

Well-founded arguments have been made against public sector unions for quite some time now. Most notably, Franklin D. Roosevelt, historically known as a champion of liberal causes including the establishment of unions and their ability to collectively bargain contracts, warned against the establishment of unions for the public sector. In a 1937 letter to Luther Steward, President of the National Federation of Federal Employees, President Roosevelt wrote:

“All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.”

“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable.”

Pretty strong sentiment from an icon of America’s Left, no?

George Meaney, the first president of the powerful AFL-CIO union behemoth once remarked:

“It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

In 1943, a New York Supreme Court judge opined:

“To tolerate or recognize any combination of civil service employees of the government as a labor organization or union is not only incompatible with the spirit of democracy, but inconsistent with every principle upon which our government is founded. Nothing is more dangerous to public welfare than to admit that hired servants of the State can dictate to the government the hours, the wages and conditions under which they will carry on essential services vital to the welfare, safety, and security of the citizen. To admit as true that government employees have power to halt or check the functions of government unless their demands are satisfied, is to transfer to them all legislative, executive and judicial power. Nothing would be more ridiculous.”

And of course as noted, things have changed quite a bit in the realm of public sector unions and their influence.

With the lessening of almost absolute influence over doling out public sector jobs by the local political machines with the enactment of civil service laws, and instead of those public sector jobs being gained or lost through invariable changes in direction of the winds of politics, public employees were gaining essentially lifetime job security. Accordingly, this bestowed an interest and ultimately a legal permission for these employees to advocate for themselves by unionizing and bargaining collectively.

Perhaps of greater importance was the symbiotic relationship established between the Democratic party and the unions themselves, where Democrats found not only a reliable voting constituency, but also an almost endless supply of campaign funds emanating from required employee union dues.  In exchange, a pro-union platform and resultant facilitating laws have been the hallmark of Democrat politics. Ultimately, the public sector unions have influenced laws that not only enhance their financial compensation and benefit packages at taxpayer expense but also have been quite successful in crafting policy that expand the need for their services. Symbiosis indeed.

Perhaps the strongest argument against public sector unions is that for better or worse, the government holds a monopoly on certain services including, but not limited to policing, firefighting, public works, and for the most part teaching our children. Accordingly, there is essentially no other place to turn for these services and this gives these public sector employees incredible and arguably unfair advantages at the collective bargaining table—once again at taxpayer expense.

And of course, the bludgeon that unions hold over their employees is the ability to strike.  Most states—37 of them–have made it illegal for public school employees to strike for many of the valid reasons previously mentioned here. Almost predictably, not California.  The California Teachers Association (CTA) proudly chronicles many of the recent strikes—including the recently concluded SEIU walkout in Los Angeles–that have transpired in various Golden state school districts.

Lest California—Los Angeles Unified School District in particular—wishes a continued ignominious slide toward educational mediocrity at exorbitant and ever-escalating cost, perhaps it is time to reevaluate policy that puts public school employees in the proverbial catbird seat. 

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan, citing the oath that air traffic controllers pledged to not strike “against the government or any agency thereof”, fired more than 11,000 of those workers over the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) illegal walkout. Not only did he fire them, but he also banned them from any future employment with the government.

Perhaps it is time—as a condition of public employment—for school district employees to also sign such a pledge and then be dealt with accordingly. As the teachers’ unions, er…..education associations continually remind us, “It’s for our kids, right?” RIGHT??

The post The Problem(s) With Public Sector Unions appeared first on California Globe.

Senate Bill 573 by Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) would add provisions to California’s Political Reform Act (PRA) of 1974. SB 573 would amend Government Code Section 87406 to expand the Milton Marks Postgovernment Employment Restrictions Act of 1990.

First, the bill would provide that an employee designated in the Conflict of Interest Code for the Senate or the Assembly, for a period of two years after leaving office, would be prohibited from engaging in the following activities for compensation:

• Work that would require the individual to register as a lobbyist under the PRA.
• Work on behalf of a lobbying firm that is registered or has, within the previous three years, been registered or been required to register as a lobbying firm under the PRA.
• Work directly or indirectly influencing legislative or administrative action on behalf of a lobbyist employer that is registered or has, within the previous three years, been registered or been required to register as a lobbyist employer under this title.

Second, the above prohibitions would not apply to an individual engaging in the above activities on behalf of a nonprofit organization that is exempt from taxation under federal law.

The post SB 573: Expanded ‘Revolving Door’ Prohibition appeared first on California Globe.

Senate Bill 881 by Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil (D-Jackson) to deal with paid sick days. Previously a bill by Senator Glazer dealing with worker classification, SB 881 would amend Labor Code Sections 246 and 248.5.

Section 1 of the bill would amend Labor Code Section 246 to change the accrual method used by employers to ensure that an employee has no less than 40 hours (rather than 24) of accrued sick leave or paid time off by the 200^th calendar day (rather than 120^th) of employment or each calendar year. In addition, it would allow an employer to satisfy the accrual requirements by providing an employee no less than 40 hours (rather than 24 hours) or five days (rather than three days) of paid sick leave by the time of the employee’s 200^th calendar day.

And, it would allow an employer to cap accrued paid sick days to 40 hours (rather than 24 hours) or five days (rather than three days) in each year of employment. The increase to forty hours or five days in each year of employment per 12-month period would begin January 1, 2026. An employer could also cap an employee’s total accrual of paid sick leave at 80 hours (rather than 48 hours) or 10 days (rather than 6 days).

The bill would also require paid sick time for nonexempt employees to be paid “at the employee’s base rate of pay” (rather than “calculated in the same manner as the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the employee uses paid sick time, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that workweek”).

The bill would also add additional provisions to this section of Labor Code. First, if an employee uses paid sick leave, an employer may request that an employee provide a written statement signed by the employee stating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified. In addition, if an employee uses paid sick leave on three or more consecutive work days, an employer may request that an employee provide reasonable written documentation demonstrating that the employee was absent from work for a reason specified. And, an employer would not be in violation of this section if the employer denies leave based on a determination that the verification or documentation provided is false.

Finally, on or after January 1, 2024, a county, city, or municipality would be prohibited from adopting any ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation or amend any such ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding paid sick leave other than related to COVID-19-specific paid sick leave. Moreover, this section would preempt any existing local ordinance, resolution, law, rule, or regulation regarding earned sick leave, other than local ordinances regarding COVID-19-specific sick leave, including any local ordinance that requires an employer to provide a number of paid sick days in excess of what is required by this section.

Section 2 of the bill would amend Labor Code Section 248.5 to provide that this article would not be enforced by the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

The post SB 881: Paid Sick Days appeared first on California Globe.

Senate Bill 279 by Sen. Roger Niello (R-Sacramento) proposes to make changes to the public comment process during executive branch administrative agency rulemaking proceedings. SB 279 would amend Government Code Section 11346.3 that is part of California’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to make several important changes.

First, regarding the definition of a “major regulation,” a state agency would be required to provide a minimum 21-day public comment period to allow interested parties to submit economic impact statements or other related information concerning the proposed regulation. This comment period would be for the purpose of determining whether the proposed adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation would require a standardized regulatory impact analysis (SRIA).

Second, upon receipt of the major regulation analysis, the Department of Finance (DOF) would be required to provide a 30-day public comment period on the analysis. Third, the DOF would then be required to comment within 30 days of receiving public input on that analysis. The DOF comments are to be on the extent to which the analysis adheres to the regulations adopted by the DOF.

The post SB 279: Rulemaking Process on ‘Major Regulation’ appeared first on California Globe.

It turns out that around the world, around the nation, and in California itself the severity of the impact of catching COVID was not equally distributed and, like most other diseases, it struck certain groups harder than others.

In COVID’s case, it was the old and the obese.

While it was strongly suspected from early on in the pandemic that the elderly and unhealthy – specifically the obese – were the most vulnerable populations, Dr. Anthony Fauci and his fellow pandemicists downplayed the risk differential in favor of an “Everyone’s Gonna Die!!” public message specifically tailored to enforce the lockdown, masking, social distancing, and vaccination dictates they had created.

While there are many not-at-all flattering theories as to why this happened – money, power, elections, the ability to increase societal surveillance while simultaneously limiting long-sacred personal freedoms, etc. – it cannot be forgotten that Fauci took much the same tack, an “everyone is at similar risk, so bow down before my bureaucratic expertise” strategy, in his handling of the emergence of AIDS.

The “sun rises in the west” denial of the efficacy of natural immunity and the soft-pedaling of the well-established fact that the obese are particularly vulnerable to airborne viruses as they tend to have reduced respiratory capacity and less well-functioning T-cells engendered by such a strategy led to resources being diverted from high-risk populations, causing untold suffering.  

As with nursing homes being forced to accept COVID patients, and not just in New York – this “equity of risk” idea was – from the relatively early stage of the pandemic – clearly not the best way to save lives and limit societal damage; it was, in fact, the opposite.

Three years from the closure of society, the numbers available now are crystal clear – age and weight mattered more than Fauci let on.

(Note – there is much debate over the accuracy of pretty much every number related to the pandemic.  However, for the purposes of this article –  which is to compare similarly obtained statistics – that issue is less relevant.  In other words, while the apples may be bruised and wormy it remains an apples-to-apples comparison.)

Internationally, it is almost assuredly not a coincidence that the countries – mostly Asian nations –  that have lower rates of obesity also had lower rate of COVID deaths. The numbers do not track exactly, but the trend is quite clear and it becomes clearer moving closer to home.

Of the five most obese states in the America, three of them also ranked in the highest death rate top five – the other two placed sixth and eleventh.

Looking at the five thinnest states, three of the top six are also in the “six lowest rate of COVID deaths” category.

California and Florida have surprisingly similar – and relatively low – obesity rates and both preformed about the same when comparing death rates, despite the vastly less tyrannical approach Florida took to the pandemic.

In California, the ethnic demographic with the lowest obesity rate – Asian-Americans – had a significantly lower death rate. In fact, the Asian population was the only demographic group whose death rate was lower than its percentage of the state population.

The numbers break out as follows:

• the Hispanic share of the population is 39%, their obesity rate is 37%, and their death rate (i.e. the percentage of the total number of deaths – about 100,000 –  in the state) was 42% (again, 42% of total deaths, not 42% of all Hispanics.) 
• For white people, their share of the population is 37%, their obesity rate is 26%, and the death rate was 36%.  The black percentage of state population is 6%, the obesity rate is 40%, and the death rate was 7%.
• Quite differently, Asians make up 15% of Californians, have an obesity rate of 10%, and a death rate of only 11%, making this demographic group the only one in the state – across all delineated age brackets as well – to have a death rate lower than its share of the state’s population.

The age group statistics show definitively the vastly increased risk of dying from COVID for the elderly.

66% of Californians are under the age of 50; they accounted for 8% of the deaths.  4% of the population is over 80 years old – they accounted for 38% of the deaths (again, the Asian “advantage” holds true for every age group.)

And vaccination rates do not seem to be as accurate as death rate predictors as age and weight.  Asians under 50 were far more likely to be vaccinated than other demographic groups and a bit more likely when aged between 50 and 64. The vaccination rate difference disappears entirely for those over 65, again hinting at the oversized role obesity played.

But – as with the national response – California’s oppressive system also turned out to not be properly targeting the highest-risk groups.  True, vaccinations were made available by age and health status, but little else about the state’s overbearing response actually took into account known elevated risks.

For confirmation of that “once size fits all,” Fauci-esque approach, one only has to look at the public service announcements and other information aired by the state.

Here’s a short public service announcement (PSA) on how art can be used to convince people to get vaccinated:  

And here’s a look at students being happy to be able to graduate and animated lesbians:

And no PSA campaign would be complete with the First Partner feeling the public’s pain urging everyone (unless you’re going to the French Laundry with a bunch of donors) to stay home:

Broadcasting a message that is absolutely wrong was a common theme of California’s public campaigns.  

Here’s one on age doesn’t matter when it comes to risk:

And one on celebrating holidays properly:

And one on how wearing a mask shows you care about other people:

And, finally, an ad telling people to stay home (I think – it’s very odd):

Around the world, COVID was bad for most people, though very very good for others like the Davos crowd, the censorship-industrial complex, and people like Dr. Anthony Fauci and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Keeping high-risk elderly people all together was not a wise idea, nor – if you wanted to keep people happier, healthier and thinner –  was immobilizing people in their homes.

You would think – what with the crippling of society for years to come – they could have at least known how to save more lives.

The post The Weight of COVID appeared first on California Globe.

Assembly Bill 657  by Assemblyman Corey Jackson (D-Riverside) was amended to impose a candy tax in California. The tax of $0.05 on the distribution of candy in California would be allocated to the Mental Health Services Fund. AB 657 would add Part 13.8 (commencing with Section 31210) to Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. It would require a 2/3 vote of both houses of the California Legislature in order to go into effect.

The bill would add Part 13.8, which would be entitled the “Mental Health Services Funding Act.” The bill would define the following terms: “candy” (“a preparation of sugar, honey, or other natural or artificial sweeteners in combination with chocolate, fruits, nuts, or other ingredients or flavorings in the form of bars, drops, or pieces”), “candy tax,” “department,” “distribution,” “distributor,” “in this state,” “retail sale,” and “untaxed candy.”

The bill would require a distributor to pay a tax upon the distributor’s distributions of candy at the rate of five cents ($0.05) for each untaxed candy distributed. All revenues and penalties from the candy tax would be deposited into the newly-created Candy Tax Fund. All of the amounts in the Candy Tax Fund would be continuously appropriated to the Mental Health Services Fund.

The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) would be authorized to adopt regulations related to the candy tax. CDTFA would collect the candy tax.

The post AB 657: California Candy Tax appeared first on California Globe.

California’s Labor Code, in Division 2, Part 4, Chapter 4, Article 1 contains the “General Cal/WARN Requirements.” Article 1 was added in 2022 by Chapter 752. Section 1400 names the Chapter the “California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act” or “Cal/WARN Act.”

Section 1400.5 provides definitions for the following terms:

“Covered establishment” – industrial or commercial facility employing 75 or more persons in the last 12 months.

“Employer” – person who directly or indirectly owns and operates a covered establishment.

“Layoff” – separating from a position for lack of funds or work.

“Mass layoff” – a layoff of 50 or more employees within a 30-day period.

“Relocation” – removing all or substantially all of the industrial or commercial operations to a different location 100 miles or more away.

“Termination” – substantial cessation of industrial or commercial operations in a covered establishment.

This law does not apply where the closing or layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking of an employer in the broadcasting industry, motion picture industry, or regulating certain on-site occupations in the construction, drilling, logging and mining industries. In addition, the employees hired had the understanding that their employment was limited to the duration of that project or undertaking.

This law also does not apply to employees who are employed in seasonal employment where the employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was seasonal and temporary.

The post California’s WARN Act Requirements appeared first on California Globe.

California’s Labor Code, in Division 1, Chapter 4, provides for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE). Labor Code Section 79 established the DLSE in the Department of Industrial Relations. The DLSE is under the direction of an executive officer known as the Chief, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, who is appointed by the Governor, subject to confirmation of the Senate. The Chief holds office at the pleasure of the Director of Industrial Relations.

Labor Code Section 80 provides that the DLSE headquarters is located in San Francisco. Section 81 requires the employees of DLSE to devote their full time to the work of the DLSE receive their actual necessary traveling expenses. Pursuant to Section 82, the DLSE took over for the Division of Labor Law Enforcement, which was abolished.

In addition, subdivision (b) provides that the powers and duties of the Labor Commissioner, who is Chief of the Division of Labor Law Enforcement, are transferred to the Labor Commissioner who is the Chief of the DLSE. Section 83 provides that the DLSE took over the Division of Industrial Welfare, which was abolished. Subdivision (b) provides that the powers and duties of the Chief, Division of Industrial Welfare are transferred to the Chief of the DLSE.

Finally, Labor Code Section 21 defines the “Labor Commissioner” to mean the Chief of the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. As a result, the Labor Commissioner and the Chief of the DLSE are the same person. Hence, most practitioners use the terms Labor Commissioner’s Office and DLSE interchangeably.

The post Is It the Labor Commissioner or the DLSE? appeared first on California Globe.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) reached an agreement and a new contract on Friday, ending the nearly year long period of negotiations that also resulted in a three-day strike this week.

Going into negotiations this week, the SEIU, which represents most non-teacher employees within the LAUSD, such as cafeteria workers, special education assistants, janitors, and bus drivers, demanded at least a 30% increase in wages, as well as a $2 per hour equity wage, increased hours and health care benefits for part-time workers, better cleanliness in schools, and more hiring to make up for staff shortages. The LAUSD, meanwhile, offered a 5% wage increase retroactive to July 2021, another 5% increase retroactive to  July 2022, and a 5% increase starting this July, as well as more bonuses.

With the SEIU refusing to negotiate more, they announced a three day strike this week between Tuesday and Thursday. Despite intervention by Mayor Karen Bass to bring the SEIU back to the negotiation table, no deal was reached by the end of the strike Thursday. However, both sides finally came to an agreement on a new contract the next day. While the LAUSD had to slightly raise amounts they had given in their last offer, the final new contract also came nowhere near the 30% the SEIU had demanded earlier this year.

In total, raises under the new deal will include a 6% ongoing wage increase retroactive to July 1, 2021, a 7% ongoing wage increase retroactive to July 1, 2022, a 7% ongoing wage increase effective July 1, 2023, and a $2 per hour increase for all employees effective January 1, 2024. In addition, a bonus of $1,000 will be given to all employees who were with the district in the 2020-2021 school year, with a new minimum wage of $22.52 an hour for all LAUSD workers.

Part-time employees working more than 4 hours a day will also receive health benefits, more hours and pay for special needs professionals, and an investment of $3 million in an Education and Professional Development Fund for SEIU members. In total, the average salary is expected to jump from $25,000 to $33,000 a year, which is both a large gain as well as far less than what the SEIU was seeking.

A new agreement for the LAUSD, SEIU

“I am appreciative of SEIU Local 99’s leadership for coming back to the table to negotiate an agreement that addresses the needs of our employees and brings students back to the classroom,” said LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho on Friday. “We also thank Mayor Bass for her support and leadership in facilitating negotiations. When we started negotiating with SEIU, we promised to deliver on three goals. We wanted to honor and elevate the dignity of our workforce and correct well-known, decades-long inequities impacting the lowest-wage earners. We wanted to continue supporting critical services for our students. We wanted to protect the financial viability of the District for the long haul. Promises made, promises delivered.”

When we started negotiating with SEIU, we promised to honor the dignity of our workforce, correct inequities impacting the lowest-wage earners, continue supporting critical student services and protect the District's financial viability. Promises made, promises delivered. https://t.co/Ntx5dgqiyT

— Alberto M. Carvalho (@LAUSDSup) March 25, 2023

The SEIU also noted that “After 3 historic days of a strike led by SEIU Local 99 members, our Bargaining Team is proud to announce that we have reached a tentative agreement with LAUSD! Our fight brought our city and country together. WHEN WE FIGHT, WE WIN!!!”

Breaking News: After 3 historic days of a strike led by SEIU Local 99 members, our Bargaining Team is proud to announce that we have reached a tentative agreement with LAUSD! Our fight brought our city and country together. WHEN WE FIGHT, WE WIN!!!!https://t.co/QCUkrFbYDA pic.twitter.com/D1mDfonY80

— SEIU Local 99 (@SEIULocal99) March 25, 2023

Labor experts on Friday said that while both sides were trying to spin the situation as a win, the LAUSD was likely the one who gained more out of the new agreement.

“I would have to say that Carvalho and the district managed to coast into something agreeable for them, while the SEIU made some gains but didn’t get fully what they wanted,” explained Tyrone Levy, a former counsel for two labor unions, to the Globe on Friday. “The fact that they had to drag the SEIU back to the table rather than the district kind of says a lot. And look what happened in the end. They only got some of the raises they wanted, they didn’t get nearly all of the hiring they wanted, and they blanked on some of the issues.”

“Meanwhile, the district didn’t have to go to the cleaners and looks like they don’t have to go into the red to make up for these wage increases and added benefits. Also, they both noted Mayor Bass getting in on the negotiations. She was even at the agreement signing.”

We have a deal.

I want to thank @SEIULocal99 Executive Director @ariasmaxs and @LASchools @LAUSDSup for working together with me to put our families first.

Together, we take a step forward for the young people of Los Angeles. pic.twitter.com/UzwlbBVS4U

— Mayor Karen Bass (@MayorOfLA) March 25, 2023

“But she kind of also hurt the union a bit by forcing them back to the table, because now they had to give a counter. She is very obviously pro-union, but if she was, she would have demanded that the district sweeten their deal or something else. That’s usually what happens. But no, she went the more public route and dragged the union back, making them make the next move. Both Bass and the Union were sort of scrambling on this, and the LAUSD played it cool, made logical offers, and won out by not only appeasing workers, but not harming the school district as much financially as it could have been.”

The new contract is to go into effect immediately.

The post LAUSD, SEIU Reach New Labor Agreement A Day After Three Day Strike appeared first on California Globe.

Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Friday that the state would be ending numerous water restrictions, while keeping those aimed at preserving groundwater and helping further recharge the Klamath River and Colorado River areas.

For the past several years, the drought in California has brought forward numerous measures aimed at preserving water resources. These ranged from the more local efforts of not allowing hand watering in gardens, to California’s infamous 15% conservation target cut to water usage statewide. While the measures were partially successful in reducing water usage, more cuts were expected this year as the drought was expected to continue.

However, 12 major atmospheric river and bomb cyclones hit California in the first three months of 2023. While the rain brought everything from flooding to mudslides to snow in Los Angeles, it also significantly reversed California’s water woes. Drought conditions went from covering nearly the entire state last year to falling to only covering one-third of the state this month. Many reservoirs are now quickly approaching capacity after nearly emptying out in 2022. Snowpack levels are approaching 300% when only 100% is needed by April 1st to ensure enough water reaches Californians this year. Ski season in Tahoe is now even going until July since there is so much snow there.

Continued rains this month also led many localities to end water restrictions. This including the lifting of restrictions in Southern California, allowing the first regular water usage there since July 2022. As a result, pressure was soon placed on the state to end restrictions of their own, leading to Governor Newsom’s announcement on Friday.

According to Gov. Newsom’s roll back announcement on Tuesday, the 15% conservation target cut is to end, as are many drought contingency plans. This also included boosting up California’s allocation of requested water supplies to 75%, an increase of 40% from February and the largest amount of water being allowed to be doled out by the state since 2017.

However, Newsom also stressed that a drought was still on for many parts of the state, and that areas with groundwater reliance or those areas near the still-threatened Klamath River and Colorado River will still have restrictions in place. This includes:

• Maintaining the ban on wasteful water uses, such as watering ornamental grass on commercial properties;
• Preserving all current emergency orders focused on groundwater supply, where the effects of the multi-year drought continue to be devastating;
• Maintaining orders focused on specific watersheds that have not benefited as much from recent rains, including the Klamath River and Colorado River basins, which both remain in drought;
• Retaining a state of emergency for all 58 counties to allow for drought response and recovery efforts to continue

Drought restrictions eased statewide

“We’re all in this together, and this state has taken extraordinary actions to get us to this point,” said the Governor in a speech in Yolo County on Friday. “The weather whiplash we’ve experienced in the past few months makes it crystal clear that Californians and our water system have to adapt to increasingly extreme swings between drought and flood. As we welcome this relief from the drought, we must remain focused on continuing our all-of-the-above approach to future-proofing California’s water supply.”

Newsom’s announcement was well received on Friday, but with many water experts noting that even more restrictions could have likely been pushed back even more.

“The Governor was playing it cautiously,” explained  Jack Wesley, a water systems consultant for farms and multi-family homes, to the Globe on Friday. “This is largely because a lot of people have told him that the drought isn’t over just yet. But then again those people also said January, February, and March were going to be dry too, and look how that turned out. So there is a lot we don’t know for the rest of the year, so some stay in place.”

“Of these, the restrictions around the Klamath and Colorado rivers make the most sense. They are both still very much under where they are supposed to be, so they still need help to flow right. It’s hard to argue on restrictions staying in place in those watersheds.”

“But, overall, this is just yet another sign that California is getting back to normal water-wise. It took a wild rainy three months, but even the Governor is starting to reverse his actions. That’s a very good sign.”

More water restrictions are expected to be cut even further in the coming weeks as more rain is currently forecasted to fall later this month.

The post Gov. Gavin Newsom Announces Ending State Water Restrictions appeared first on California Globe.

Erstwhile California labor secretary and Employment Development Department chief Julie Su will face a bumpy road in her quest to become the nation’s next Secretary of Labor.

President Biden nominated Su at the end of February when former Secretary Marty Walsh left to become head of the NHL player’s union. Su had been serving as Walsh’s deputy, squeaking through – 50 to 47 on a strict party line vote –  her Senate confirmation to that position in July of 2021.

While she is acting Secretary now, her formal confirmation process is expected to begin in April, Senate sources say.

Though her Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP…seriously?) committee hearing is about a month away, the ranking Republican on the committee, Bill Cassidy, is planning to take to the Senate floor Monday to lambast Su’s nomination.  In the past, Cassidy has called Su’s record “troubling” due to her mishandling of EDD funds leading to a loss to fraud of about $40 billion during the pandemic and her staunch support of the anti-freelancer California law and the current attempt to enact something similar – the potentially devastating PRO Act at the federal level.

Su, said Cassidy, “is currently overseeing the Department of Labor’s development of anti-worker regulations that will dismantle the gig economy. This does not inspire confidence in her ability to hold her current position, let alone be promoted.”

In announcing her nomination the Biden administration emphasized the fact that she would be the first Asian-American in his cabinet and dismissed concerns about her gross negligence running the EDD.

On her watch, Su failed to install any security systems to the EDD’s payment systems, resulting in a $40 billion dollar loss. Not only has no one – apparently – been fired for this disaster, Su could be failing up in plain sight even as the state still owes the feds about $19 billion and has raised taxes on California businesses to pay for its incompetence.

But Su’s hard left progressive ideology could also spook moderate Democrats like Sens. Kelly (AZ) and Manchin (WV). Both voted for Su for the deputy position but they, along with Arizona’s other senator, Kyrsten Sinema, and others, could balk at the idea of giving her the top job permanently.

Su, said Capital Research Center’s Michael Watson, is heavily invested in “social justice unionism.”

“She may be labor centered, but she is ideologically driven,” said Watson, the Center’s research director.  

Watson said Su is quite typical of the relatively recent development of “social justice unionism,” which he defines as “organized labor (not being) a fully independent actor pursuing the material interests of its membership or even the working class at large. Instead, it is a cog in a political and cultural machine that works towards a full-spectrum left-wing agenda, including on issues far outside what might be considered organized labor’s “economic core.”

See here for a deeper dive into this concept and Su’s connections to it.

This differs from previous union agendas in that it goes far far beyond representing its member financial and workplace conditions needs and delves into unrelated social and political issues.  Los Angeles’ teacher’s union – the UTLA – boycott of Israel, for example, is a manifestation of this concept.

Another example of politically-motivated “equity” union drives is the “cadre training” offered by the California Teachers Association.

The final vote – which could take place before the summer – is expected to be razor-thin and no Republicans (unlike with the Eric Garcetti ambassadorial confirmation) are expected to back Su.

The post Secretary Su? Say It Ain’t So appeared first on California Globe.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed a rare mid-session bill into law on Thursday, legally allowing flight attendants to have the right to negotiate meal and rest break benefits while complying with both state and federal law.

Senate Bill 41, authored by Senator Dave Cortese (D-Los Gatos), specifically fixes a long-time contradiction between federal and state laws. According to California law, employees are required to be off duty during meal and rest breaks and able to leave the work premises, which is impossible for flight attendants on an aircraft. Meanwhile, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires flight attendants to remain “on duty” at all times during a flight, including during meal and rest periods. Complicating matters even further is another federal law, the Railway Labor Act, which regulates labor relations for rail and air carriers and entitles employees to organize and bargain collectively.

SB 41 specifically states that meal and rest period requirements do not apply to an airline cabin crew employee if the employee is covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement under the Railway Labor Act if there is a provision addressing rest breaks. Flight attendants covered by a collective bargaining agreement would also be prohibited from filing a new legal action over alleged meal or rest break violations. Or, in layman’s terms, SB 41 enables compliance with California’s meal and rest break law only if cabin crews secured a Collective Bargaining Agreement that provides for breaks or appropriate compensation.

Senator Cortese wrote the bill due to the issue between federal and state law becoming so contentious that many airlines were either asking for exemptions or were considering rebasing flights crews out of California to get around the law. The bill itself was marked as urgent and fast-tracked through the legislature. With the clock ticking, the bill was introduced in late December, reached Committee Discussion last month, and was passed by both the Assembly and Senate in unanimous voted earlier this month.

“SB 41 shows that business groups can come together with organized labor to solve thorny problems resulting in keeping good-paying jobs here in California that might otherwise leave the state. This negotiation resolves conflicts and provides flight attendants with a benefit that makes them whole and keeps airline workers and passengers safe,” said Senator Cortese last month. “I applaud the commercial airlines, cabin crew labor representatives, and my colleagues for promoting compromise for the benefit of commercial aviation, its flight attendants, and the flying public.”

This led to Governor Newsom signing the bill into law on Thursday, and immediately went into effect following the signing.

“Too often we see different groups staying in their corners and failing to negotiate. But with SB 41, commercial airlines worked together with cabin crew representatives to solve a difficult problem,” added the Senator in a statement on Friday. “SB 41 flew through the Legislature without opposition and gained Governor Newsom’s approval after business and labor groups joined forces and charted a course to link state law with federal regulations. The law preserves the rights of flight attendants, keeps good jobs from leaving California, and it keeps air passengers safe.”

Flight attendants told the Globe on Friday that the new law would be beneficial and that crews based here now wouldn’t have to leave the state.

“This may not seem like much to someone outside the industry, but we were really worried about how this would all end up,” said Gabrielle Norris-Kline, a California-based flight attendant, to the Globe on Friday. “You know, the law said different things, and the solution wasn’t simple. A lot of people said things like ‘So just work, take a break when you need to, and if something comes up, just pause it and go back to it once the problem is over  and, well, you can see how tricky that gets, especially with unions coming into the mix. Now, it’ all sorted, or as about sorted as it will ever be.”

SB went into effect on Thursday immediately after being signed into law by Governor Newsom.

The post Gov. Newsom Signs Flight Attendant Rest Break Bill Into Law appeared first on California Globe.

In reviewing legislation in the California Legislature over the past few years, as well as a number of California appellate court decisions, I definitely have a preferred approach to setting forth legislative findings, declarations, and intent in legislation. In that vein, I came across a recently bill in the 2023 California Legislative Session that follows this approach.

In this particular bill, Section 1 sets forth a series of legislative findings and declarations, followed by a statement of legislative intent. In this particular bill, Section 1 is uncodified language, but that is not the important part. Instead, combining these statements and using them together is my preferred approach.

The legislative findings and declarations “set the stage” regarding a general basis or purpose of the legislation, followed by a clear statement of legislative intent. This approach is different than many bills in the California Legislature. For example, many bills contain either legislative findings and declarations, or they contain statements of legislative intent, but not often both of them in the same bill. 

The following is the example from a recent bill that follows this approach:

SECTION 1.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares both of the following:

(1) Despite California’s commitment to financial aid and college affordability, many immigrants are not eligible for the aid that they need to fund their expenses in college. Among these immigrants are asylum seekers who have filed for asylum and are awaiting an interview date.

(2) Many pending asylees in California may be admitted to a college or a university, but they are not eligible for federal funding until they are granted asylum status. As a result, these students, who have fled persecution, are unable to attend college due to a lack of financial resources.

(b) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to expand eligibility for Cal Grant Program awards to pending-status immigrants, such as pending asylees who are registered with the Department of Homeland Security, allowing them to receive a Cal Grant Program award that covers expenses at accredited California institutions of higher education.

Hopefully, the courts in this state will look favorably upon this approach that includes both types of statements in a single section of a bill.

The post Combining Legislative Findings and Intent Statements appeared first on California Globe.

Assembly Bill 1516 by Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) would add Labor Code Section 1182.14 in order to require the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to convene, until July 1, 2024, a working group consisting of representatives from the Labor Commissioner’s office, the Employment Development Department, organizations representing low-wage or immigrant workers, and organizations advocating for the rights of incarcerated persons to study and evaluate topics related to the minimum wage in California.

Among the topics to study and evaluate will be raising the minimum wage, the utilization rates of the state’s social safety net by minimum wage workers, the role of the California Strategic Enforcement Partnership in state minimum wage enforcement efforts, and the socio-economic benefits of ending the sub-minimum wage for incarcerated workers.

Finally, the working group would be required to submit to the Legislature, on or before July 1, 2024, a report that outlines recommendations for raising the minimum wage for all workers in California.

The post AB 1516: Minimum Wage appeared first on California Globe.

If you want to see a microcosm of Leftist government and communities that vote for Leftists, look no further than Pajaro, California, where a levee break two weeks ago forced hundreds of families to evacuate their homes in the middle of the night; where Democrat-controlled government promised “immediate” aid; and where poor Latino families are now literally begging the government for aid that may never arrive.

The unincorporated area is at the intersection Santa Cruz and Monterey counties, where voters in 2022 pulled the lever for Gov. Gavin Newsom by wide margins (76% and 64%, respectively). After the levee broke, that same governor told residents he had spoken with Joe Biden and that help was on the way; that there would be an “‘immediate response’ to the state’s request for a major disaster declaration” and “a range of federal assistance money, including individual financial aid.”

Voters in 2022 also approved a local tax assessment to cover ongoing maintenance of the $400 million Pajaro River Flood Risk Management Project. That project is 100% funded by the state and federal government. Once the levee is rebuilt, local taxpayers will pay for operations and maintenance.

“For 70 years, generations of residents in the Pajaro Valley waited for the day when strong flood protection would be a reality,” Santa Cruz County Supervisor Zach Friend said on election day 2022. “With this vote and the monumental efforts to secure funding at the state and federal levels, we have reached that day.”

A few months later the levee broke, and now residents are demanding help from the people they voted for. Unfortunately for them, and less than a week after Newsom’s visit, the state had not requested aid from the Biden Administration, and “both FEMA and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services said the damage to hundreds of homes in Pajaro alone would not qualify the state for FEMA assistance.”

On March 23, Monterey County lifted the evacuation order, allowing residents to go home. But, according to the Santa Cruz Sentinel, there is no drinking water, the sewer system still doesn’t work, and toilets can’t be flushed. “It isn’t recommended that residents stay until sewer and water are restored. Those entering the area do so at their own risk.”

Even without the flooding, a quick glance at the interactive map of the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) shows that Watsonville and Pajaro are both unhealthy places to live. Both rank near the bottom of the index, with scores of 13.5 and 7.1, respectively. The Santa Cruz County average is 83.9, and Monterey County’s is 46.4.

The HPI Score says Watsonville has “healthier community conditions than 13.5%” of other California locales.

The HPI also indexes the Racial Justice and Health Equity of every zip code in the state. Watsonville is one of the least diverse cities in all of California, with a Race/Ethnicity Diversity Index of 12.1%. (Latinos represent 93.6% of the population, 5.3% White, 0.6% Asian, 0.1% Black, and 0.3% two or more races.)

Monterey County Tract 101.01, where Pajaro is located, is slightly more diverse with an Index of 21%. (88.6% Latino, 6.7% White, 2.5% American Indian or Alaska Native, 0.8% Asian, 0.7% Native Hawaiian or Asian Pacific Islander, 0.4% Black, and 0.2% two or more races.)

Watsonville’s Race/Ethnicity Diversity score ranks near the very bottom of the index, with a lower score than the “Whitest city in California.”

For comparison, the city of Paradise — the so-called “Whitest city in California” which was almost totally destroyed by the Camp Fire of 2018 — is more diverse than Watsonville or Pajaro. Paradise is 85.6% White, and has a Diversity Index of 27.8%.

According to California.com (owned by One Planet and “fueled by the power of California love”), Los Angeles is the “most diverse city” in the state, with Oakland, Long Beach, Sacramento, and San Jose rounding out the top 5.

If those cities have anything in common with Watsonville and Pajaro, it’s that they’ve been let down by the governments they voted into office.

“They let us down,” said Monterey County spokesperson Nicholas Pasculli about the Democrats who run his county, state, and national governments. “We’re still waiting on the presidential emergency declaration that was promised to us over a week ago. Governor, please pick up the phone and call the president and ask him to have empathy for the suffering of people in Pajaro. Ask him to sign the declaration.”

Pasculli, named Monterey County’s communications director in 2021, works for the Democrat-controlled Board of Supervisors. For instance, Luis Alejo, who represents District 1, is a former state legislator ranked the “2013 Most Effective Democratic Assemblymember” and was awarded as “2015 Legislator of the Year.”

Democrat Glenn Church, who represents Pajaro as Supervisor of District 2, said in 2021 that he was running for election because housing, fire safety, roads, social services, animal control, public safety and water all suffered “long-term neglect” in North Monterey County.

“People are frustrated that the county government is not taking care of their problems,” Church said at the time. “New leadership is required to bring the change that is needed.”

A few months after Church was elected, the levee collapsed in one of the least diverse communities in the State of California, and Latinos who make up 90% of the population are begging for crumbs from politicians who promise diversity, equity, inclusion, and — much like Bernie Sanders says — “a government that truly works for the people.”

A few complete paragraphs from the Mercury News story are instructive.

“So far, the only financial assistance available to residents is the $300,000 the state allocated to the Monterey County United Way in COVID-19 farmworker relief funds three years ago. Some of that money can now go to Pajaro evacuees — but only if they are actually farmworkers. And even that money — a single payment of $600 — hasn’t been disbursed.

“One Pajaro resident, a farmworker, said she was told the $600 debit card won’t come for another two or three weeks despite the ‘immediate needs’ of her family.

“For those who don’t qualify as farmworkers impacted by COVID, there is currently no plan for financial help.

“’They’re only giving help to those who identify that they work in the field, and if you don’t work in the field, they’re not offering help,’ said Jose Hernandez, who spoke at Tuesday’s meeting. ‘It’s not right. We’ve all been hurt the same, not just those who work in the fields. The help should be equal.’”

And where was Glenn Church during all this? At that chaotic meeting described by the Mercury News, “Monterey County Supervisor Glenn Church, who represents Pajaro, could be seen leaving through a back door as bewildered residents surrounded public officials to ask for any updates.”

The post Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and the Pajaro Flood appeared first on California Globe.

A person in a coma is considered to be non-responsive.

Unironically, also considered to be non-responsive is California’s Employment Development Department (EDD) when it comes to answering Congressional questions.

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability – which is looking into various aspects of the pandemic response, including its financial impacts – has deemed the EDD’s answer to a January information request as not nearly good enough.

“The EDD has not provided documents requested by Chairman (Kentucky Republican James) Comer,” said a committee spokeswoman. “We intend to have additional follow up on the document request.”

When asked by the Globe for a comment, the EDD provided a copy of a letter it sent to Comer’s committee in late January and did not address the current issue of their failure to provide the requested documentation.

Non-responsive, indeed.

The committee is attempting to get to the bottom of the massive fraud perpetrated against the EDD during the pandemic. The current estimate is that the EDD lost about $40 billion to illegitimate claimants, including prisoners (and not just from California prisons,) garden variety local scammers, and international fraud rings, all of whom simply walked right in to the department’s completely unprotected system.

While the EDD has claimed it did the best it could, it should be noted that the EDD – even though it could have purchased basic fraud protection software that would even work with its antiquated IT systems for about $5 million-  had no way to prove if an applicant was who they said they were until the end of 2020, months after the pandemic began.

The EDD also had no system to check to see if people in prison, people from out-of-state, and people from overseas – all ineligible for benefits – were getting benefits in the form of a chipless debit card pre-loaded with up to about $15,000 – each.

The EDD did not even cross-reference addresses to notice and potentially flag as fraudulent when a single home received dozens, if not hundreds, of cards (they used to have one but stopped paying for it when a federal grant ran out a few years ago.)

Particularly telling is that California has about 12% of the nation’s workforce, it saw more than 20% of the unemployment benefit fraud in the country, meaning that word spread very quickly in the fraud world that the state was an especially easy mark.

In January, the committee requested the following:

1. All processes and procedures related to the disbursement of unemployment insurance benefits during the pandemic, including policies and procedures intended to ensure payments are made to the proper individual, and to ensure that the individual is a qualified recipient of unemployment insurance;
2. All documents and communications between employees of the California EDD and employees of the U.S. Department of Labor regarding the state’s UI benefit program;
3. All documents and communications related to efforts to prevent payment of fraudulent UI claims;
4. All documents and communications related to efforts to recoup UI claims paid improperly;
5. All documents and communications related to identifying the total number of improperly paid UI benefits and documents sufficient to show whether those funds remain in the United States or were transferred to entities outside the United States.

The committee spokeswoman would not specify exactly how the EDD was “non-responsive” – for example, was the information missing or unrelated or gibberish – but stressed the agency remains very prominently on Congress’ radar.

In the January letter to the committee – the one that was re-provided to the Globe –  department chief Nancy Farias blamed the Trump administration for the massive fraud, stating, in part, “… we object to the Chair’s mischaracterization of California’s response to the UI fraud attacks and the Chair’s failure to acknowledge the inadequate response by the Trump Administration, which left neglected state UI systems fighting domestic and international criminal enterprises effectively on their own.”

In other words, the feds didn’t hold their hand tight enough.

Either way, this claim flies in the face of a California State Auditor’s report that states flatly that the feds “warned the state at least three times in the early months of the pandemic to beef up its fraud protections.”

The date for the next response deadline is not yet clear nor is exactly when Farias and other EDD employees will have to testify in front of Congress.

As of midnight Wednesday, the EDD – which, again, suffered a very preventable loss of $40 billion –  still owed the federal government a principal amount of $18,735,210,647.41 in addition to interest of $142,361,804.80.  

Finally, the state has increased unemployment insurance taxes on California businesses to make up the shortfall and it is not clear if anyone at the EDD has been fired for the failure; in fact, the person in charge at the time, Julie Su, could become, the next Secretary of Labor in the Biden administration.

The post California EDD Deemed ‘Non-Responsive’ by Congressional Committee appeared first on California Globe.

The heavy rains and snow that 12th atmospheric river event this year brought continued to break precipitation records across California this week, with reservoir and snowpack levels all but ensuring the state enough water to stave off the drought this year.

Reservoir levels across the state are close to being topped after the storm this week. In January, Lake Shasta stood at 57% of it’s normal levels, with Lake Oroville at 71%. By early March, Shasta was at 84%, with Oroville brimming up to 116%. This week, normal water levels in reservoirs are all over 100%.

This time in 2021, Lake Shasta was at 977 feet MSL (Mean Sea Level), far below the average and even farther below the full pool level of 1,067 feet MSL. In 2022, the situation grew even worse, with the Lake showing severe signs of water loss and a feet MSL of 940. However, when measured on Thursday, the lake was above the average with 1,031 feet MSL, with less than 40 feet to go before reaching full pool level.

Lake Oroville has had a similar story. In the last two years, it has been at a low point of between 720 feet MSL and 740 feet MSL, well below the average and full pool level of 900 MSL. Images of Lake Oroville during this time grew famous due to the visible waterline in the surrounding rocks. But on Thursday, there was less than 45 feet to go before the full pool level, with 856 feet MSL being recorded.

Up in the mountains, record levels are also being experienced. In January, snowpack levels in the mountains were at 174% the average amount. In early March, levels were above 200%. Based on measurements on Thursday, the average snowpack level statewide was at 227%. In the Southern Sierra Range, a main feeder for both the Central Valley and the Los Angeles area, levels were approaching 300%, with snowpack at 283%. As snowpack levels need to be at at least 100% on April 1st to ensure enough water reaches both urban areas and farms for the rest of the year, the levels all but ensure California will escape drought-like conditions for the rest of the year.

Other side effects have been noted as well. Many ski areas have extended ski season until early July due to the sheer amount of snow. Water restrictions caused by the drought are rapidly being lifted across the state. Wildfire season predictions are being tempered down due to the constant rain. And, to top it off, around two-thirds of the state are no longer under drought conditions.

While these are all positives, what does it mean for the rest of the past the April snowpack measuring day?

“Well, it depends how much more rain is coming for one,” explained Jack Wesley, a water systems consultant for farms and multi-family homes, to the Globe on Thursday. “It looks like another band is coming next week, so while it can mean more flooding and damage, it means it is also officially eating into the warmer weather months too.

“More than that though, any final drought restrictions will likely be lifted, especially if the meltwater comes more as a force rather than a trickle. For farms, right now some are flooded, but once that dries out it should be a pretty good year following the last few that have been near bone dry. A lot of areas will be more full of life. We’ve gotten used to scrub-like conditions the last few years, so we’ll be seeing a lot more green this year in all likelihood.

“Right now it’s all dependent on temperatures, how much more rain is coming, and how much we store for when we get a dry spell again. We’ve had a weird last several years weather-wise, so we don’t really know what it can look like right now.”

Snowpack measurements for April are due next week.

The post Reservoirs, Snowpack Levels Continue To Rise Across The State Following Latest Atmospheric River Event appeared first on California Globe.