Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts

Waste On Waste: CA's Useless Reform of its Green Laws

The headline says "(CA) Lawmakers OK Bill To Soften Environmental Reviews" and CA Greens are making the expected noise about the destruction of the Earth as a result of the pathetic efforts of Sacramento Democrats, but don't believe it.

California lawmakers on Friday approved a bill that would soften parts of a landmark, 4-decade-old environmental law and could pave the way for the quick approval of large developments across the state.
In the final hours of the year's legislative session, Democrats pushed through a measure that would give the governor the power to speed up the environmental review process on some large construction projects, including sports stadiums and green manufacturing plants. It was sent to the governor late Friday.
...

If signed by the governor, AB900 would allow projects costing $100 million or more to request streamlined judicial review under the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA. That law, passed in 1970, requires public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of construction and other projects and mitigate them.

This is nothing more than standard New Deal-style corporatism. It's a gift to labor unions, big developers, and a few urban pols who want to build sports arenas. The bill's main proponents are city fathers in Sacramento, who want to build a new basketball arena, and the city of Los Angeles, which wants to build a new football stadium. Liberals are the "smart" party, of course, so I guess they know something about economic benefits (economically, they are a loser) of the public funding of sports stadiums that the rest of us don't know.

The bill's limitations are a cruel joke. You need to have a project costing at least $100 million in order to qualify for expedited review. So a dry-cleaner who wants to expand his business, or a developer who wants to build a dozen homes, has to go through every regulatory hoop in creation, while billionaire sport team owners, and their political patrons, sail through.

We don't need $100 million sports arenas or solar panel plants (the bill's proponents are talking grandly about how "green" factories can also benefit from streamlined review, as if the Solyndra BK happened in an alternate reality). We need hundreds of little "developments" - AKA new businesses - that provide permanent jobs, not temporary jobs for a few thousand construction union members. But, Democrats don't understand economics, they understand politics. And politics says the opportunities for graft and corruption lie in "big" projects, not small business.

If you want to reform CA's environmental laws, you need to get rid of them (and the state's enforcement agencies) and rely on federal law, which is bad enough, but would still be an improvement.

Obama's Enron? The FBI Raids Solyndra

Unbelievable. A week after Bay Area solar panel company filed for bankruptcy, the FBI has raided the Green company's corporate offices.

FBI agents executed search warrants Thursday at the California headquarters of Solyndra LLC, which was awarded more than $500 million in federal stimulus loans in 2009 to make solar panels in what the Obama administration called part of an aggressive effort to put more Americans to work and end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
But the firm filed a bankruptcy petition Tuesday in Delaware, shedding more than 900 full-time employees, leaving just a “core group” of 113 employees, according to bankruptcy records.
FBI spokesman Peter D. Lee said multiple search warrants were served at the company’s Fremont, Calif., headquarters in what he called a joint investigation by the FBI and the Energy Department's Office of Inspector General. But he said he could not provide any details about the ongoing probe.
Energy spokeswoman Karen Sulier confirmed that the department was involved in the investigation but would not elaborate. Solyndraspokesman David Miller said the company was cooperating in the investigation but did not know the reason for the search.
News of the raid prompted key Republicans in Congress, who already were investigating the loan to the company, to issue a statement calling for answers from the company.

The right-wing paranoia aspect of this raid is that the feds are not seeking evidence, but grabbing incriminating documents and sequestering them in the Justice Department. Eh.

Better is the progressive criminality aspect, which is so delicious it's almost chocolate flavored. Conservatives have to listen to liberals talk about how smart they are, how rational they are; and, contrariwise, how dumb and "anti-science" we are. But, I don't remember conservative leaders lining up to praise the expenditure of public money on a corporation that could not make it in the market place on its own, but was able to collect $500 million because its executives were Obama donors. You know how there's "book smart" and then there's "street smart?" This is Exhibit A.

There's also a report out there that Solyndra executives visited the White House no less than 20 times, no doubt bringing extra bags to carry all of that stimulus money that Barak Obama, Joe Biden, and Steven Chu noisily gave them. Honestly, these guys would have been perp-walked in orange jumpsuits during a Republican administration, while liberals railed about Republican corruption. But, at least we don't countenance a fraud like green jobs.

De-Stimulator: Solyndra Files For Bankruptcy

Today's big business news in the Bay Area was the bankruptcy filing by Fremont-based solar panel maker Solyndra. Not only did 1,100 people lose their jobs, but American tax payers lost $535 million in "loan guarantees," which sounds more, ah, market based than what they really were: payouts to a favored corporation.

Solar-cell manufacturer Solyndra Inc. announced today that it would seek bankruptcy protection, suspend work at its Fremont facilities and lay off 1,100 employees, as the recent plunge in panel prices undercut the company's sales.
Solyndra, whose modules are thin tubes rather than flat panels, gained national attention in 2009 when it won a $535 million loan guarantee from the federal government to build a second factory in Fremont, near the company's headquarters. State and federal officials cited the project as an example of how the green tech industry could generate jobs.
But the company had to cancel its plans for a $300 million initial public stock offering last year, and it struggled to compete against a flood of inexpensive solar cells pouring into the market from new factories in China.

If you want to read about the crony capitalism aspect of this story, Verum Serum has you covered. I'm more concerned with the spectacle of yet another failure of the sort of "socially responsible" investing that smug progressives never fail to nag us about during Republican "anti-science" administrations.

Right-wing talk radio blowhards are falling over each other playing soundbites from Pres. Obama's visit to the Solyndra plant in May 2010. This certainly should be embarrassing to all of those Greens who assured us that this was the wave of the future. As it turned out, it wasn't even the wave of next year.

Jail Guitar Doors: The Feds Raid The Gibson Factory

If you're looking for a fitting symbol for the heavy hand of government in the age of progressive politics, you can't do better than the US Dept. of Fish & Wildlife's raid of the Gibson guitar factory.

Federal agents swooped in on Gibson Guitar Wednesday, raiding factories and offices in Memphis and Nashville, seizing several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. The Feds are keeping mum, but in a statement yesterday Gibson's chairman and CEO, Henry Juszkiewicz, defended his company's manufacturing policies, accusing the Justice Department of bullying the company. "The wood the government seized Wednesday is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier," he said, suggesting the Feds are using the aggressive enforcement of overly broad laws to make the company cry uncle.
It isn't the first time that agents of the Fish and Wildlife Service have come knocking at the storied maker of such iconic instruments as the Les Paul electric guitar, the J-160E acoustic-electric John Lennon played, and essential jazz-boxes such as Charlie Christian's ES-150. In 2009 the Feds seized several guitars and pallets of wood from a Gibson factory, and both sides have been wrangling over the goods in a case with the delightful name "United States of America v. Ebony Wood in Various Forms."
The question in the first raid seemed to be whether Gibson had been buying illegally harvested hardwoods from protected forests, such as the Madagascar ebony that makes for such lovely fretboards. And if Gibson did knowingly import illegally harvested ebony from Madagascar, that wouldn't be a negligible offense. Peter Lowry, ebony and rosewood expert at the Missouri Botanical Garden, calls the Madagascar wood trade the "equivalent of Africa's blood diamonds." But with the new raid, the government seems to be questioning whether some wood sourced from India met every regulatory jot and tittle.

The gag is that the feds aren't enforcing US law - well, technically they are - what they are doing is enforcing a US law requiring the feds to enforce Indian and Madagascan law about importing certain types of protected wood species. But, those countries don't seem to be enforcing their own laws, but are exporting the wood. And you have to love the idea of Madagascar's "blood wood." I like to follow the news from Madagascar (check my "Madagascar" tag), and I have never heard of this concept.

We heard a lot about the dark night of fascism descending on the US during the Bush years. But, I'll tell you this: you would never have a raid like this under a Republican administration. US Greens idled hundreds of highly skilled workers, gave a venerable US manufacturer reason to consider moving overseas, and did so even though Gibson has already gone out of its way to make sure it is complying with America's onerous envvironmental regulations, which we are assured don't affect the economy at all (oh, heavens No!) and certainly don't cause the loss of the sort of skilled manufacturing jobs that liberals claim to to be so concerned about.

Oh, and Gibson CEO Henry Jusckiewicz apparently donates to conservative causes and operates out of a right to work state. There are a lot of US based guitar shops, but only this one (and non-union Peavey) have been targeted by the feds. Imagine that.

Also, musicians are worried that their guitars will be seized by customs inspectors if they can't prove they were manufactured with the correct wood. That's life under our cool, progressive president.

Gibson Guitars, and the musicians who use its products, are not criminals. But they are being treated as such and are threatened with more; all in the name of a bogus environmental ideology that restricts freedom in increasingly absurd ways.

Self-Immolating: Obama's Solution for Rising Gas Prices? Buy A New Car!

For all of Obama's skills as an orator, it's amazing how often is mouth gets him into trouble when he is away from the teleprompter. That is because Obama is, to be blunt, a jerk. There was his suggestion at a health care forum that a 99 year old woman "take a pain pill" rather than receive a new pacemaker. There was his detached response to the woman at a town hall who described her economic troubles and how they made it difficult to defend him ("we've passed some programs"). And there was "the Cambridge police acted stupidly."

Well, Obama was in Pennsylvania yesterday, and someone in the audience rose to complain about rising gas prices and how hard it's been to fill up the tank of his SUV. Obama's suggestion: "you might want to think about a trade in." Here is the amazing video:

It's so simple! Gas prices go up, then buy a new car! (Obama even suggests that GM, Ford, and Chrysler can "get you a deal"). That's so economical! Never mind if you might need a large vehicle because you're a contractor, or have more than three kids. Obama's questioner, it so happens, has 10 kids, something Obama reacts to with the same incredulity as he does to the idea of anyone buying an SUV.

We all know that Obama and his Green supporters are perfectly fine with high gas prices, regardless of how burdensome they might be. For them, the only problem is whether $4 gas will lead to a mass "trade-in" of the Obama Administration come 2012. But, Obama can't say that. So instead, he insults this guy, his choice of vehicle, and by extension every American who owns a large truck, van or SUV, whether by necessity or choice.

Urban liberals may find it hard to believe, but people don't buy Chevy Suburbans because they want to destroy the environment or compensate for their shortcomings. They buy them because they need them, either due to work demands, family size, or lifestyle choice (heading out into the Great Outdoors is much more fun in an SUV than in a Prius). People clearly need these vehicles, yet the President of the United States just as clearly doesn't want Americans to have them in their driveways. And he certainly doesn't want SUV owners cluttering up his town halls asking impertinent questions.

Breaking News: Actual Experts Discuss Nuclear Power On Local News

Here's a news report that ran on the local ABC news, featuring the Free Will Brother In Law, who is a post-doc at UC Berkeley's Department of Nuclear Engineering. Turns out there's been a lot of misinformation out there RE: possible radiation leaks from the stricken Japanese nuclear reactors. Who knew!

UC Berkeley's Department of Nuclear Engineering continues to collect air samples for any sign of radiation. On Friday, they also collected rain to see if any radioactive particles fell from the sky.
Air samples collected on Thursday night on the roof of UC Berkeley's Department of Nuclear Engineering failed to show any significant levels of radioactivity, and then came the rain.
"The rain is a very efficient way to wash out activity in the atmosphere and get the potential activity down to us. So this is actually a much more sensitive and efficient way for sampling," Professor Professor Kai Vetter from the UC Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering said.
The levels may be slightly higher. According Vetter, there again he sees nothing to worry about. UC Berkeley nuclear engineers also demonstrated why it's impossible for the fuel rods in Japan to catch on fire. They exposed a piece of cladding, just like the ones found in the Japanese reactor cores to 2,000 degrees Celsius. If the cladding burnt, the nuclear fuel inside would send huge amounts of radioactive particles into the atmosphere.
"It's worse, much worse to have it on fire. The fire and the smoke become a way to spread the material that's inside," Professor Charles Yeamans from the UC Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering said.
The test proved the rods, while they would suffer some damage, would not catch on fire. The Japanese reactors have another layer of protection, pools of water that act as moderators unlike Chernobyl which had graphite.

American journalists have had a week to put something like that on the air, but instead we've been treated to a steady drumbeat of scare headlines about "sharply rising" radiation levels, plus nuclear experts whose jobs seem more PT Barnum than Robert Oppenheimer. But, since we've never heard any apologies for the "cannibalism at the Superdome" stories, it's probably too much to expect sober commentary on nukes, at least not while people are paying attention.

I've seen a lot of critical commentary out there about how Japanese officials have not been forthcoming enough about the extent of the danger from a possible meltdown. Yeah, it's so much better to have a lot of hysteria and bad information out there whether from Ed Markey trying to score cheap Green points, the surgeon general suggesting people stockpile iodine, CNN trying to scare the Depends off of its aging audience, or good old fashioned nonsense about irradiated spinich. Could it be that the Japanese put a premium on putting out correct information while Americans apparently prefer to just have a huge out-pouring of "facts," the majority of which are wrong or exaggerated? Perish the thought.

This is the point when I will wax philosophical about how this shows how fundamentally different Japanese and American society is. While Japanese media and politics is buttoned up ("inscrutable" is the formulation), America's lets it all hang out. And that works for all concerned. But, I'll bet Japan will still have a robust nuclear industry after all this, while America's is going to be set back for another 20 years, mostly based on opportunistic fear mongering. While Luddite American Greens can always find screen-time on national broadcasts, the sober engineers and scientists who know what they are talking about sit around their labs talking to themselves.

Devolution: Government Mandates "Dirty" Washing Machines

The Wall Street Journal had this essay about how government regulations have degraded the quality of washing machines in the United States. Read it and weep:

In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were "excellent" and five were "very good." By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were "fair" or "poor." This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as "often mediocre or worse."
How's that for progress?
The culprit is the federal government's obsession with energy efficiency. Efficiency standards for washing machines aren't as well-known as those for light bulbs, which will effectively prohibit 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year. Nor are they the butt of jokes as low-flow toilets are. But in their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.
The federal government first issued energy standards for washers in the early 1990s. When the Department of Energy ratcheted them up a decade later, it was the beginning of the end for top-loaders. Their costlier and harder-to-use rivals—front-loading washing machines—were poised to dominate.
Front-loaders meet federal standards more easily than top-loaders. Because they don't fully immerse their laundry loads, they use less hot water and therefore less energy. But, as Americans are increasingly learning, front-loaders are expensive, often have mold problems, and don't let you toss in a wayward sock after they've started.

I swear, sometimes I think "American Exceptionalism" refers to how Americans, or at least those in government, are exceptionally stupid. In the name of Saving The Planet we have switched to lightbulbs that don't cast light, toilets that don't flush, and now washing machines that don't wash. GM is starting to sell an electric car that lacks any kind of adequate heating system because it's the only way to preserve the MPG numbers that justify its existence. It's a joke, but not a particularly funny one.

Ignoring The Flow of Information

San Francisco is always bragging about how it's in the vanguard of social change, whether for gay marriage, banning Happy Meal toys, or what have you. One of local environmentalists' crowning glories has been their successful effort to force everyone to convert (or die, I assume) to low-flow toilets years before the rest of the country did. Now, we are learning the horrific consequences of being so hip.

San Francisco's big push for low-flow toilets has turned into a multimillion-dollar plumbing stink.
Skimping on toilet water has resulted in more sludge backing up inside the sewer pipes, said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission. That has created a rotten-egg stench near AT&T Park and elsewhere, especially during the dry summer months.
The city has already spent $100 million over the past five years to upgrade its sewer system and sewage plants, in part to combat the odor problem.
Now officials are stocking up on a $14 million, three-year supply of highly concentrated sodium hypochlorite - better known as bleach - to act as an odor eater and to disinfect the city's treated water before it's dumped into the bay. It will also be used to sanitize drinking water.
That translates into 8.5 million pounds of bleach either being poured down city drains or into the drinking water supply every year.

I swear. While conservatives in other parts of the country can go to Tea Party rallies, and even vote for a solid candidate like Rand Paul or Jim DeMint, San Francisco conservatives have to content ourselves with running out into the streets, arms waving madly, yelling "Stop! Stop! For, God's sake, just STOP for five minutes!" The City says 20 million gallons of water have been "saved" by this, which must not account for the fact that the men's room toilets at my office require at least two flushes to, uh, complete the circle of life. If you know what I mean.

You'd think this would cause red-faced local Greens to reconsider their endless efforts to tinker with the environment as being the cause of more trouble than whatever good comes from their pitiful little schemes. But, no, they're gearing up to object to the use of bleach to cover up the smell.

A Don't Bleach Our Bay alert has just gone out from eco-blogger Adam Lowry who argues the city would be much better off using a disinfectant like hydrogen peroxide - or better yet, a solution that would naturally break down the bacteria.

That's how it goes when you seek perfection. When your plans fail, you'll have a lifetime sinecure in tinkering.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back To The Banquet Hall: California Moves To Ban Shark Fin Soup

California might be a fiscal train wreck, but that doesn't mean liberal legislators can't continue their hobby of "banning" this or that activity because of its danger to the environment, the environment being the California legislature's equivalent to the Commerce Clause in providing the rationale for virtually everything they do. Now, a couple Bay Area Assemblymen want to ban the sale of ... shark fin soup. As shark fin soup is a Chinese delicacy, this is further proof that tolerance and multi-culturalism do not, in fact, extend to all cultures:

Less than a week after Chinese New Year, California legislators introduced a bill to ban the possession, sale and distribution of shark fins used in a traditional soup.
If successful, the proposed ban announced Monday would follow a similar measure enacted in Hawaii last year. Oregon and Washington are also considering a similar move.
Shark fins are used to create a luxury Chinese soup that can sell for more than $80 a bowl.
Supporters of the ban say shark finning is a cruel practice in which fishermen slice the shark's fin off while the animal is still alive and then throw the shark back in the sea to die.
Assemblyman Paul Fong, D-Cupertino, who introduced the legislation with colleague Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, said he was born in Macau and grew up eating the soup but stopped doing so when he learned about the practice of finning. More than 70 million sharks were killed last year, many for their fins, Fong said.
"It's like removing the tusks from elephants and paws from tigers," he said. "The sharks are at the top of the food chain and they maintain the balance in the ecosystem. If sharks fall like a house of cards, the rest of the ocean will fall."

Now, I haven't gone out and done any surveys myself, but I know one thing. That "70 million sharks a year" number is bogus, the sort of thing you see on Sierra Club pamphlets, flyers at protests, and major legislation passed by the California Assembly. Even if it is true, what would banning the sale of shark fin soup in California accomplish? I can guarantee that 99% of all shark fin sales occur outside the Golden State, so Assemblyman Fong's goal of saving the ocean from a "fall" will not be met unless he's willing to travel the Pacific Rim nagging Chinese people who don't in fact need whiners from Cupertino telling them what to do. But that doesn't matter when the priceless opportunity to put on a brave face and "save the ocean" presents itself.

(Full disclosure: I, of course, have eaten shark fin soup. Once. It did not taste like chicken. Indeed, it did not taste like much at all. Also, I did not feel more "potent" afterwards. However, I did feel a little thrill as I thought "This is me, eating shark fin soup!")

Goofy food bans seem to have become the hot new thing among Bay Area liberals. Guess it's easier to do that than try to cut state spending or reform state pensions.

We Are Doomed, Again

Holy Moley! You won't believe the story I just saw in the SF Chronicle! Parts of the California wilderness - the Sierras and the Sacramento Delta - are threatened by, get this, "climate change!" This coalition of environmental groups called the Endangered Species Coalition - you've heard of them, right? - totally did this study that said that, unless we change the way we drive our cars, build our houses, and allocate our water, we might not have anymore snow or water!

Two of California's most treasured natural settings are also among the most imperiled landscapes on Earth, as disruptive changes in climate patterns promise to melt glaciers, dry out rivers and set forests ablaze in coming generations, says a coalition of conservation, sporting and community groups.
Unless people significantly alter the way they manage water supplies and fuel their cars and homes, the Sierra Nevada and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta will become increasingly hostile to already-dwindling wildlife and fish species, the Endangered Species Coalition said in a report released Wednesday.
Likewise for the Hawaiian Islands, Southwest deserts, Arctic sea ice and shallow-water coral reefs around the globe.
"Climate change is no longer a distant threat on the horizon," said Leda Huta, executive director of the Washington group. "It has arrived and is threatening ecosystems that we all depend upon, and our endangered species are particularly vulnerable."
In the report, "It's Getting Hot Out There," the coalition ranks the top 10 "hot spots" for vulnerable species, mostly within the United States with a few beyond. No. 1 on the list: the Arctic ice sheets where polar bears, seals, walruses and sea ducks make their home. Tropical coral reefs were second. The delta is No. 5 and the Sierra Nevada No. 6 on the list.

I can totally believe that because I was just in Tahoe a couple weeks ago. Five feet of snow fell there in a couple of days, but you could just tell that the snow could melt away under the right conditions.

I know we can trust the Endangered Species Coalition. It looks like they did a lot of work on this study. If they did so much work, it could only be because they care about all humanity. What an awesome burden. And, after doing all that work, I'll bet they've got all sorts of useful suggestions for taking care of the problem. I just hope people pay attention long enough so we can save the snow.

Scenes From the Class Struggle

Line of the day comes from Colorado school janitor, Michelle Matthews, who supports the construction in Colorado of the first uranium processing facility in decades, and which is opposed by (naturally) the wealthy residents of Telluride (via Instapundit)

“People from Telluride don’t have any business around here,” said Ms. Mathews, 31, who works as a school janitor and ardently supports the idea of bringing back uranium jobs. “Not everyone wants to drive to Telluride to clean hotel rooms.”

Back On The Block

The Free Will Family is back from its vacation at Lake Tahoe. Don't want to bore you with holiday snaps, but do want to share some lessons learned:

1. if you live in San Francisco, you have to get used to the fact that it just never snows here. Before last week, it had literally been years since I'd seen snow, and even then I had to visit my parents in Virginia for a snow dose.

2. When you drive into the Sierras to get to Tahoe, you really do cross an invisible threshold into another world - endless miles of mountain peaks and pine trees with drifts of snow as far as the eye can see. My not-quite two year old daughter, who has spent virtually her entire short life in the Big City, had a look of intense curiosity on her face as she looked out on to the white winter fastness. I swear that looking out into the California wilderness increased her IQ by 20 points. If I were the sentimental type, this is when I would start saying things like "That Look In My Daughter's Eyes Made the Whole Trip Worth It" and "That's What It's All About," but I'm not sentimental at all. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to wipe some dust out of my eye.

3. Really, it's easy to see why so many Californians are environmentalists of one degree or another. For all of its reputation as a hip "advanced" civilization, virtually the entire state is either rural or undeveloped wilderness. Not only that, the state's wilderness comprises some of the most beautiful and dramatic natural scenery in the country. Of course, people are protective of it.

4. That doesn't mean they aren't irrational about these sorts of things. California is doubling down on its cap & trade system, despite the Sierras, and other "protected" areas, being hundreds of miles from any smoke belching factories.

5. And, there are plenty of folks who haven't gotten the memo. Tahoe was filled with SUVs, pick-ups, and other culturally verboten vehicles. But, there's a reason for that: if you are going to exercise your god-given right to ski in Tahoe and commune with nature, you'd be crazy to try to do it in a Prius. For all of winter's beauty, it's also dangerous. We drove up Rt. 50 in a snow storm. The roads to Tahoe are narrow enough as it is - I doubt they've been widened in decades - but add an inch of snow, the CHiP's snow removal equipment, plus dozens of cars pulled over to the side putting on chains, and you've got a real obstacle course.

6. We drove over to Carson City, which is about 30 minutes from Tahoe, and is the capitol of Nevada. Can't say it's too inspiring to see a state capitol building with a casino looming over it on the next block. It's also not too inspiring when you look around the political capital of the whole state of Nevada and find yourself mentally comparing it to Needles.

7. On the other hand, the Nevada side of Rt. 50 is much wider and more modern than the California side. That's the thing about California. People say they're "pro-environment," but then have to spend their winter vacations driving their $50,000 SUVs up a road that is the same size as the one their grandparents used.

8. Modern road trips have gotten ridiculously civilized. There's always a McDonalds or a Starbucks around the bend. That might not matter so much when you're a young guy, but when you have a kid and a wife with certain, ah, minimum demands for comfort, you can appreciate it.

9. There's no place like home.

Standing Athwart Progress Yelling "STOP!": The Palo Alto Tree v High Speed Rail

Despite the parlous state of California's finances, it's full speed ahead on the high speed rail project. We already know it's going to cost tens of billions of dollars. We also know that it will end up costing more than anyone will admit. And if this headline is repeated down the length of the state, we all know that our grandchildren will be in their dotage before the final spike is nailed: Historic Tree Stands In The Way of High Speed Rail.

Towering 10 stories above the banks of San Francisquito Creek, the El Palo Alto redwood predates the U.S. Constitution by more than 800 years. It is widely believed to have been a campsite for explorer Gaspar de Portola when he discovered San Francisco Bay in 1769.
It has endured everything from ecological changes to economic shifts, all of which left marks on the ecology of this venerable tree. Now it’s entangled in the debate over high-speed rail.
The tree stands within 10 feet of existing Caltrain tracks between the Menlo Park and Palo Alto stations, with commuter trains passing by 90 times every weekday. Initial plans by the California High-Speed Rail Authority called for widening the tracks to accommodate the new rail line, which would put the tree in jeopardy. Proposed alternatives included a trench or raised track.
To be sure, critics cite many reasons for their opposition, including the costs. But in Palo Alto and neighboring communities, the tree has become a budding symbol for why high-speed rail — approved by a majority of the state’s voters in 2008 — needs to be evaluated carefully. Dave Dockter, Palo Alto city arborist and current steward of the tree, said, “I think all of the alternatives have a potentially significant and catastrophic potential to impact the El Palo Alto redwood.”

There's a good example of why California is bankrupt. This tree has its own steward, while I don't even have a manservant. Talk about a misallocation of resources!

More important, it's a good example of how California's inflated sense of self leads to absurd results such as a "historic" tree - did it run for president, or something? - standing in the way of a rail project that the state can't afford; would replace an already cheap, speedy form of transport (it's called an airplane); and would be going through some of the least developed, sparsely populated land in the country (the idea that CA is a densely populated, over-developed place is a myth. Most of the state is rural, if not wilderness). Bonus gag: there's already a rail line going by the tree.

The fact is that California has some of the least historically significant territory in the country. Maybe it's my East Coast bias, but I lived in Northern Virginia for many years. Half the Civil War was fought within a two hour drive of my house. And some scolds in Palo Alto are worried about a tree? Get a grip.

Passing The Law of Unintended Consequences

While I am still bitterly muttering under my breath over California's non-participation in the GOP wave, at least one tiny little silver lining has appeared. Although voters passed Prop. 23, which affirmed the state's cap&trade law, they also approved Prop. 26, which requires a supermajority to pass fees and regulatory charges. Horrified global warming fans are starting to realize that the supermajority will make it highly unlikely that many of the fees and charges built into cap&trade will ever pass.

Has the popping of Champagne corks been premature?
We're referring to the defeat of Proposition 23, which has been hailed as the game-winning home run for California's climate change law.
But celebrations have turned to fears about the impact of what some have called its "evil twin" - Prop. 26, which passed Tuesday. That's the initiative relabeling environmental mitigation and other fees as taxes, requiring the virtually impossible to get two-thirds vote, thus starving state and local treasuries even further.
"In effect they will stop (AB32, the climate change law) with this," said Scott Hauge, president of Small Business California, who supports the law, "along with many of us in the business community." Hauge was referring to San Ramon's Chevron Corp. (which was "neutral" on Prop. 23) and the California Chamber of Commerce, both of which poured millions of dollars into Prop. 26.
According to a UCLA School of Law study last week, the initiative "could have substantial and wide-ranging impacts on implementation of the state's health, safety and environmental laws," including AB32. Noting that the state imposes regulatory fees for such programs, the study said Prop. 26 will "make it harder to fund these programs in the future."

First of all, when are we ever going to admit that ballot propositions like these are far from ideal? Voters hardly have the time and inclination to figure out how a particular proposition might play out, let alone how it might affect other propositions.

Still, if there is one area of law that deserves to be thrown into chaos, it's this one. Californians are famously pro-environment (who isn't? I like birds and blue skies, too), but state progressives use that tendency to craft all sorts of growth-smothering, business-destroying environmental regulations that are more about power and control than they are about saving the planet.

Californian pols are also adept to appealing to state voters' vanity. Despite years of depression level economics, everyone from the Governator on down likes to talk about how California is "on the vanguard" and "leading the way" for the rest of the country. Then they strike heroic socialist realist poses for the cameras while looking purposefully into the distance (I call this the Year Zero Face). The state's cap&trade law promises blue skies, which everyone hears about, but relies on faulty science and an enormous tax burden to accomplish its goals. Somehow this is never quite included in the discussion.

Still, while I like the idea of the state's environmental regs being thrown into at least temporary chaos, I do need to castigate the state GOP, which really slept on this and other propositions, all to its extreme disadvantage. For example, there was Prop. 25, which eliminated the supermajority requirement for passing taxes. I am a pretty plugged in guy, but until I read the voter guide a couple days before the election, I hadn't heard a word about this. By contrast, you couldn't listen to the radio for 20 minutes without hearing a "Pass 26" ad. Losing the tax supermajority was a disaster for the state, the taxpayers, and to the GOP. There was no organized opposition. I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of voters hadn't heard of Prop. 25 until they entered the voting booth.

Meanwhile, no Republican stood up to support passing Prop. 23. Our Republican governor led the opposition! Our Republican candidate for governor refused to say anything. And our Republican Senate candidate, when asked directly her position on Prop. 23, said she hadn't studied the issue. What do you need to study? By contrast, Barbara Boxer had a ready answer.

Agreed that Boxer is obnoxious, mean, and not as smart as she thinks she is. But, you know what? When someone asked her about Prop.23, she had an answer: she's against it. She also said passing it will result in the loss of US jobs. Plus, the oil companies are in favor of it. So, there you go.

Stupid? Sure. Misinformed propagandizing? Absolutely. But, Boxer is a pro speaking to an audience, that wants to know where she stands and why. That will take you a lot farther than stuttering answers about the complexity of an issue.

That's how it's done state GOP.

Bad Science: CA Flunks Math & Science - No Global Warming?

Global warming and the politicized scientists who are its greatest adherents continue to do themselves no favors. The fully radicalized Green California Air Resources Board (CARB, chuckle chuckle) recently admitted that it had miscalculated the level of harm caused in California by diesel fuel emissions:

California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state's clean air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.
The pollution estimate in question was too high - by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.

340 per cent?! This from the side of the political spectrum that always bows low to "science" and chortles over Sarah Palin's inability to name her favorite Supreme Court case. Maybe conservatives are "stupid" because we don't understand the science behind global warming, but at least we haven't been implementing legislation and ordering businesses to retool (when they aren't fleeing the state) based on bad science and bad math.

This, by the way, is not CARB's first mistake

The overestimate, which comes after another bad calculation by the Air Board on diesel-related deaths that made headlines in 2009, prompted the board to suspend the regulation earlier this year while officials decided whether to weaken the rule.

Despite all this, the reporter writing this story describes CARB as "powerful and well respected." "Well respected" by whom?! (I don't doubt CARB's power). Honestly, how can CARB - or its proposed solutions to the hoax of Global Warming - retain any respect after all of this? Yet, the state's political class, led by the usual moderate Republicans, is fighting tooth and nail against a proposition that would suspend implementation of CA's goofy green legislation until unemployment falls below 5.5%.

But, hey, Meg Whitman fired her maid. And, Christine O'Donnell said she dabbled in witchcraft.

The Silent Spring Where Money Talks: The Carson-Gore High School

What the heck is going on in the Los Angeles Unified School District? First we had the over-priced Robert F Kennedy Community Schools. Now, word comes that a charter school dedicated to "environmental sciences" - i.e. Green advocacy - and named for Rachel Carson and Al Gore is built on a toxic waste dump. No, this is not a joke:

The $75.5-million Carson-Gore Academy of Environmental Sciences will open Sept. 13 for about 675 students. As he was with Bill Clinton (who has an L.A. middle school named after him), Gore is second on the ticket to Rachel Carson, the late author credited with helping launch the modern environmental movement.

"Renaming this terribly contaminated school after famous environmental advocates is an affront to the great work that these individuals have done to protect the public's health from harm," an environmental coalition wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District. Making sure the school is safe "would be an even better way to honor their contribution to society."

Construction crews were working at the campus up to the Labor Day weekend, replacing toxic soil with clean fill. All told, workers removed dirt from two 3,800-square-foot plots to a depth of 45 feet, space enough to hold a four-story building. The soil had contained more than a dozen underground storage tanks serving light industrial businesses.

Additional contamination may have come from the underground tanks of an adjacent gas station. A barrier will stretch 45 feet down from ground level to limit future possible fuel leakage.

An oil well operates across the street, but officials said they've found no associated risks. Like many local campuses, this school also sits above an oil field, but no oil field-related methane has been detected.

Groundwater about 45 feet below the surface remains contaminated but also poses no risk, officials said.

The school cost $75 million to build, but now needs another $4 million to clean up whatever lingering waste is out there. Even more toxic is the curriculum, which promises to teach kids absolutely nothing they could use in the real world should they ever manage to graduate.

Lowry said the school's environmental emphasis will do Gore proud, including recycling projects and research and beach cleanups. Cross-curriculum efforts will include environmental speeches and presentations in English, topsoil measurements in math and climate study in science.

The principal also envisions an organic garden that could produce a student-led farmer's market.

We are approaching the moment of liberal singularity, where their ideas will finally attain infinite density and zero volume

The Can't Do Society: Life Under Progressive Governance

San Francisco is a beautiful city with a comfortable climate, great restaurants, and unrivaled cultural opportunities. It can truly be said to be at the vanguard of many social and economic trends. Hey, if it was good enough for Milton Friedman, it's good enough for Free Will! SF is also, you may have heard, a nest of progressive politics with the most left-wing polity of just about any major city in the US. As the following stories make clear, this makes it devilishly hard to get anything done, even something as simple as registering kids for school or holding an international regatta

First, if you were not aware, local billionaire Larry Ellison won the most recent America's Cup Race, which means he has the right to determine the date and location of the next race. Cool! I thought. The America's Cup in the San Francisco! Apparently, there are those who don't share my enthusiasm, specifically the inevitable environmentalists who have drafted onerous laws that the City and Ellison need to work around, or lose the Cup Race. Oh, and they have six weeks to dispense walking around money, er, "work with environmental lobby and the state legislature"

San Francisco officials are moving quickly to acquire an exemption to state environmental law in time for a deadline to submit a proposal on hosting the next America's Cup, The Chronicle has learned.
"Without this legislative action, it is likely that San Francisco will not be selected and the regatta will be held overseas," said a recent memo from Mayor Gavin Newsom's office that was used to brief environmentalists on the proposal, which would cover shoreside facilities for yachts, gear and support services.
Some environmental groups, while appreciative that city officials sought their input, warn that an exemption would open the floodgates for wealthy interests to circumvent state-required environmental review.
"We're not going to sit by idly and let that happen," said Tina Andolina, legislative director for the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental lobbying group.

The City estimates that the Race will add 9,000 jobs and bring in a billion dollars to the local economy. But, wait! "Tina Andolina" objects and won't sit idly by and let such a thing happen! Good thing we have people like that on the case. But don't call environmentalism a job killer! That's H8!

Ellison and the City are bending over backwards to make this happen, so I'm sure there will be an appropriate compromi$e. Saving the planet really is a racket.

Second we have the annual spectacle of parents trying to get their elementary school age kids into a decent public school. You'd think that it would be a simple matter of taking the little tykes to the school down the street, but we don't do "simple" very well in SF: Parents Struggle For Choice In SF Schools

Walt Szalva and his wife, Blaire Hansen, were on a nearly hopeless mission Wednesday morning. They stopped in at Chinese Immersion School at De Avila on Haight Street on the tiny chance that their 5-year-old daughter, Devon, might be able to get into kindergarten there.
After touring 20 schools, following up with principals, putting in more than 100 hours of research, and camping out at the Educational Placement Center for hours at a time, they were 0-7 on the schools they chose for Devon.
They had hoped that with the first week of school under way, a spot would open up at one of the schools on their list.
So they showed up at De Avila, without an appointment, on the hope that they could chat with Principal Rosina Tong, who might give them a hint of encouragement. She couldn't.
"I know parents come in here hoping," Tong said. "But I'm not sure I can give you hope. I can only say that a system is in place and it will work out."
Frankly, if Szalva hears "a system is in place," one more time, he may start speaking in tongues.

This is progressive governance at its absolute worst. All these people want is to put their kid in a safe, competent public school. But, instead they get the run-around such that their 5(!) year old doesn't have a place to go on the first day of school. Oh, sure, the district offered to let the girl go to a school with "some of the lowest test scores, worst academics and poorest parent participation in the district." Wow, how could they resist such a command from their betters! That wasn't a choice. That was an insult.

The reason for all of this is the inevitable "diversity." A kid like Devon can't get into the place she wants because somehow SF was insufficiently diverse in the past (when?!) so that today's kids are punished for the sins that may have happened 40 or 50 years ago. Boy, it sure would be nice if there was a system in place where parents could put their child in private school and receive some sort of compensation - maybe in the form of a voucher? - from a school district that seems absolutely incapable of doing the one thing it's supposed to do: educate their kids. But, we all know what good liberals - is there any other kind? - think of that.

There's a reason why SF famously has more dogs than children. The City simply could care less about kids. If the parents don't like what the school system offers, they are essentially told to get out of town. For the parents who can't afford such an option, their kids end up in mediocre, unsafe schools where the priority seems to be punishing the present for what was done in the past. How compassionate. Also, how hide-bound. City leaders are forever playing at "we are the vanguard" of the future and posing for Social Realist-style photos where they gaze purposefully into the distance. But brute reality is that they want to run everything from the top down, and to hell with anyone who wants to follow their own path. "Progressive" = Repressive.

No doubt, many disappointed parents are hip liberal types who actually believe all that talk about teachers being the noblest of professionals, that children are the future, and that diversity is the highest possible value. But, one by one they learn the truth and open their eyes. Unfortunately, there are always a dozen more coming behind them, happily wearing their blindfolds.

Perpetual Motion: Regulators Look to Add Noise to "Silent" Hybrids

When people say that democracy is the worst political system except for all of the others, this is what they are talking about: Quiet Hybrids: An End To Their Sounds of Silence?

The age of the silent hybrid may be coming to an end.
Gas-electric hybrids, propelled by electric motors at low speeds, are well-known for their quiet ride and great mileage. But their silence isn't always golden.
Some researchers and safety groups say that quiet operation — "hybrid creep" — can pose risks for unsuspecting pedestrians and the blind, who use sound cues.
Advocates for the blind have sought the addition of artificial noises in hybrids for several years, concerned that the expected sales growth of hybrids could lead to more pedestrian fatalities and injuries. Hybrids account for about 2 percent of new car sales each year but auto companies are expected to boost production in advance of tougher fuel efficiency standards this decade.
"This is an example of too much of a good thing," said John Pare, executive director for strategic initiatives with the National Federation of the Blind. "Cars got quieter, that was good. Suddenly they got to be so quiet that it added an element of danger."

If we're going to force auto makers to add noise to their hybrids, may I suggest the sound of a baby going "Waaaaaahhh?" I mean, really. One of the unintended benefits of the hybrid revolution has been the notable decrease in urban noise, at least in my neighborhood. Now, the inevitable public-interest advocates are coming out of the woodwork. Evil corporations are killing blind people! Something Must Be Done! And the government is happy to along with it.

The linked article does mention that 4,300 pedestrians were killed in 2008, the most recent year for which data are available. Naturally, there is no mention of whether this was an increase, a decrease, or the usual tragic toll. The NHTSA sez their data provides that hybrids are two times more likely to be involved in pedestrian accidents at low speeds. Naturally, there is no mention of whether silence was the cause of the accidents, whether suddenly endangered blind community was disproportionately involved, or even whether the driver or pedestrian were deemed to be at fault. Also, there was a comical incident on The Office where one character snuck up on the other in his "silent" Prius and pinned him to a wall. Well then! (Note: yes, the article includes this in its "evidence" that Something Must Be Done).

On the one hand, the solution could be: order car companies to add artificial noise to their hybrids (which really aren't truly silent. All of the hybrids I've encountered while dodging danger have had distinctive acceleration and deceleration tones), so that the air is filled with annoying computer-generated chirrups; and with each auto manufacturer developing their own tone. On the other hand, we could all act like adults and exercise caution when entering or approaching an intersection. But, we all know what bureaucrats think of radical ideas...

The Hidden Hand

You might recall not too long ago that there was a lot of noisy talk about flight delays at US airports. In fact, an annual ritual developed where luckless holiday travelers would be stranded on runways for hours on end, leading to grusome stories about lavoratories "filling up" (gag) and babies howling as their milk supply ran dry. We then had the even more grusome spectacle of consumer watchdog groups forming to express outrage, and the Barbara Boxers of the world manning the microphones to assist in fanning that outrage. Abuse was heaped on the airlines, as if letting their planes sit on runways for hours on end was part of a well-thought out strategy.

Now, the issue has dissipated thanks to, among other things, the construction of new runways, which magically relieved the congestion. Are we doomed to repeatedly re-learning the obvious? O'Hare's New Runway Makes Travel Easier For All

Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport is no longer the tar pit of the nation’s air-transportation system.
In the eight months since a new runway opened at the U.S.’s second-busiest airport, plagued for decades with lengthy flight delays, O’Hare has operated with above-average on-time arrivals—better than Dallas, Atlanta and Denver in 2009, according to FlightStats.com. O’Hare’s on-time arrival rate improved by 27% so far this year compared with the same period of 2008. That was twice the improvement of any other big U.S. airport.
The new runway, opened last Nov. 21, gets much of the credit. While airline reductions in flight schedules have eased congestion and reduced flight delays, the ability to now land three planes simultaneously in most weather conditions instead of two jets at a time has turned O’Hare from a choke point into a reliable airport.

Note that the troubles in the nation's air transit system originated in the City That Only Knows How To Make $$ Off Inertia. These runways could have been built at any time in the past 20 years, but weren't, because the activists who are the true constituencies for many members of the political elite didn't want them built and to hell with the millions of people who got stuck on backed up runways:

Because of the enormous cost and heated legal battles with neighbors and environmentalists, building runways at big airports is a rarity—and a major reason air travel has been bogged down in the past 10 years. Last fall, three major runways opened with much fanfare on the same day in Chicago, Seattle and Washington, D.C. Seattle’s new runway took two decades of planning, approval, court fights and construction. O’Hare’s new runway was the first at that airport in 37 years.

Here is one of the unspoken truths about American politics: gov't at all levels is often unable to plan for the future because querelous activists at the nation's chokepoints - in this case, people in and around O'Hare, along with the inevitable "environmental" groups - can stop a worthwhile project for decades, while someone else - in this case the airlines and the airport - will take most of the blame. It is a truth so explosive that it can only uttered in the W$J's "Lifestyle" section. You would certainly never hear anyone state this so bluntly where it counts.

This is symbolic of how America's public institutions have seemingly ground to a halt. A "can't do" ethos has been imposed upon us without any debate, discussion, or even our comprehension. Even if we can do it and want to do it, we can't. We have changed from a nation of Robert Moses expanding our boundaries to a nation of Ralph Nader keeping us within tightly constricted lines. While highly motivated and concentrated activists can exercise power that is outsized compared to their numbers, the vast majority doomed to sit on delayed flights are too diffused and disorganized to act as a counter-weight. Often, it can be unclear for many years that this effect exists.

It defies reason to ask why an environmental lawyer in Chicago might have an indirect impact on persons living and traveling hundreds of miles away, after all. And yet he does. How long before people look around at their glorious "can't do" society and wonder who else is standing at the nation's chokepoints?

Passengers have detected a difference. Tim Snyder, a Chicago-based sales and consulting executive for a software company, began noticing that his flights in and out of Chicago were more frequently on time, and arrivals frequently used the new runway. He started keeping track and had a streak of 26 consecutive on-time flights before bad weather in Chicago delayed his flight for two hours. But the streak resumed, and now he’s been on time for 36 of his past 37 flights.
“Those are tax dollars I like to spend,” says Mr. Snyder.

Imagine the waste and lost opportunity represented by these unbuilt runways. Imagine all of the time spent sitting on the nation's tarmac. Imagine all that wasted fuel. Imagine the overtime the airlines had to pay. Imagine the loss of revenue from angry customers. Imagine the damage to the airlines brand and reputations. Imagine an air transit system that couldn't expand because there weren't enough landing areas. Now imagine some public interest lawyer sitting in a paper-strewn office who made all of this possible. And yet the law is often set up to bolster his cause, rather than the cause of all those millions of persons and businesses artificially hemmed into a diminishing number of runway space, all so we can vindicate the imagined rights of the environmental lobby, and airport neighbors who act shocked! shocked! when the airport decides to expand.

This is a problem beyond what President Romney or Palin could deal with. This is a product of the legal and political culture that vindicates the rights of activists, rather than that of the average middle class person who is purported to be the object of political concern. Ha! He is the forgotten man in all of this.

Door #3

Hey, look! CA's Big Five have reached yet another tentative budget deal! State Leaders Have A Tentative Plan to Fix the Budget

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders reached a tentative budget compromise Monday to plug a $26.3 billion deficit by making hefty cuts in education, health and welfare services, and taking billions of dollars from county governments.

There's a lot about this deal that's better than what they came up with last winter. For one thing, this deal, and its approval, are pure products of representative government. Voters will not be asked to vote in another "special" election. There is no attempt by the representatives to fob off to the voters their responsibility to vote on these things. Best of all, the outline of the deal provides for deep spending cuts, and no new taxes, just the sort of thing the "tyrrannical" minority GOP has been asking for throughout. Mwa ha ha!

Of course, it's not a perfect deal. for one thing, the state will "borrow" and then repay billions of dollars from county governments, based on what mechanism I have no idea. The journalists covering this story are no help. And, although taxes will not go up, the withholdings from our paychecks will increase (as will our subsequent refunds). Sounds like a lot of money shuffling around, rather than a glidepath to good governance.

The compromise would avoid raising new taxes, but would add more money to the state's depleted coffers by taking billions of tax dollars that local governments receive each year - money that the state would repay in future years. The plan also includes Schwarzenegger's ideas to collect taxes earlier and increase the state income tax withholding in worker paychecks. This move would allow the state to collect more income taxes earlier but could result in higher refunds.

Still, they managed to make some symbolically important cuts, such as eliminating the Integrated Waste Management Board, which had devolved into a glorified sinecure for legislators who were termed out of office, or lost their seats:

The agreement would also eliminate the Integrated Waste Management Board and combine its functions with the Department of Conservation. Together they would create a new department under the state Resources Agency. The plan would eliminate the waste board's six-member panel, which is made up of political appointees who each earn $132,179 a year.
Former lawmakers have often been given the lucrative appointment, including former state Sen. Carole Migden of San Francisco, currently a member of the board. She and her fellow members would be out of their jobs at the end of this year

You won't be able to get rid of Carole Migden that easily! She will rise again!

Incredibly, the deal also provides for drilling off the coast of Santa Barbara. While this is not quite a third rail issue, it is one that is a flashpoint for CA Greens and wealthy NIMBY's who don't like the idea of drilling off the coast, and who are masters at generating a media frenzy. Expect hysterics over this one.

The deal also includes Schwarzenegger's earlier proposal that would allow offshore oil drilling near Vandenberg Air Force Base, about 6 miles from the Santa Barbara County shoreline, generating about $100 million a year in new royalties for the state.

This is cosmetic stuff, however. The big expenses are education, state payrolls, and the CA's overly generous welfare prorams. If there is one thing that voters have made clear this year, it's that they want the government to continue spending $$ on education. The deal works withing the present budget system for education spending, especially the dictates of Prop. 98. While there are significant cuts this year, that money will also be repaid starting in 2012, the projected date of the next CA budget crisis:

Legislators agreed to limit spending on education without suspending Proposition 98, a voter-approved constitutional rule that spells out minimum spending for K-12 schools and community colleges. Sources told The Chronicle that the governor and legislative leaders also agreed on a scheme to pay $9.5 billion to public schools beginning in 2012 to make up for education cuts in the current budget.

CA's welfare state will also face "deep" (and for now, unstated) cuts.

Schwarzenegger's initial proposal to eliminate health and welfare programs outright was rebuffed by Democrats, but those programs - In Home Support Services, CalWorks and Healthy Families - face deep cuts as well.

Is the crisis over? No. While the spending cuts are great news, CA's government will remain a leviathan. There has been no effort to reduce state payrolls and no effort to reform the public employee pension fund. There is no indication that the regulatory and tax climate that has made CA so hostile to business will be rolled back any time soon. There is no indication that the initiative process will be reformed. Worst of all, the budget relies on the sort of goofball accounting gimmicks - paying state employees on the last day of the fiscal year for wages that would have normally been earned on the first day of the following year, for example - that allow the gov't to claim to have balanced budget, when it really has done no such thing.

For now, however, the immediate drama appears to be over. CA remains a Big Government outpost with a center-left orientation. This means the crises will continue to unfold in the middle and long term. Oh, joy. There's only one way to change this, and that is to change the people sitting in the Legislature, but that is a tall order. For most people here, a lazy kind of liberalism is their default position. 2010 should be an opportunity to bring in some new blood, but in the absence of a crisis atmosphere like we had this year, that might be tough to pull off. Still, we must try.

7thriv