By JOHN SEILER

I love cars. The best auto site in the Internet is EricPetersAutos.com. He writes not just about old and new cars, but about the politics of cars.

Another great site, LewRockwell.com, just published an article by Peters on how the government is spying on us through the dozens of little computers that now run modern cars. One of Big Brother’s biggest helpers is the California Air Resources Board. CARB not only imposes excruciating regulations because of AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (even though global “warming” has been disproved). It also micro-manages vehicles.

This isn’t paranoia. It’s government policy that’s out in the open. Things could get worse once the government imposes OBD III — On Board Diagnostics III. A better name for it would be Orwellian Bad Diagnostics III.

Before getting to Eric’s article, let’s see what the U.S. government says about it. The federal Environmental Protection Agency’s Web site explains: “On-Board Diagnostics, or ‘OBD,’ is a computer-based system built into all 1996 and later light-duty vehicles and trucks, as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. OBD systems are designed to monitor the performance of some of an engine’s major components including those responsible for controlling emissions.”

That means the edicts were signed into law by President George H.W. Bush, in case you thought Republicans were any better than Democrats.

The EPA site adds: “For State Agencies:

* “OBD plays an important role where vehicle inspection and maintenance programs are required.

* “This site will help you find information on program implementation guidance and outreach materials to help raise awareness about OBD in your state or locality.”

Currently, we’re still in OBD II. But the even more Orwellian OBD III is just around the corner. Eric writes, “Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth — the California Air Resources Board (CARB) which sets the trend for what inevitably becomes national when it comes to emissions rigmarole.”

CARB Edicts

He then quotes CARB, which writes: “If the inspection process could be automated through the use of transponder-assisted on-board diagnostic systems (in what could become an OBD-III requirement or program), the process could be made less costly and time-consuming. ” (Italics added by Peters.)

Peters explains: “If it comes to pass, OBD III will be the keystone that assures the end of any expectation of privacy behind the wheel (in addition to everywhere else) and it will also obviate the quaint notion that it’s your car — and hence, private property. Hence, hands off. SEMA’s fact sheet about OBD III notes this directly, stating that OBD III would impose what amounts to “sanctions based on ‘suspicionless mass surveillance’ of private property” and would also be ‘random,’ with the actual monitoring taking place before the computer throws any codes — and so, bereft of probable cause and thus a pretty clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.”

The Fourth Amendment guarantees, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

But the Fourth Amendment effectively has been repealed, despite some modest remaining protections. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that police cannot snap a GPS tracking device to your vehicle with out a court order. However, if OBD III becomes operative, such a device effectively already would be hard-wired into your flivver, so no warrant will be required.

Old Cars

One way around the new super-Orwellian vehicle spying is to get a car from before about 1979, when the earliest computers first were installed. A car like the beautiful 54 Packard in the picture. Peters recommends doing that. And he wrote a great article showing how you can update on an old car to make it more fuel-efficient.

Yet, in his more recent article, Peters warns that the government effectively may outlaw older cars. No doubt the auto industry would cheer, as people then would be forced to buy more new cars, just as happened during the Cash for Clunkers program. That program ended up driving up the price of used cars so much that friends of mine haven’t been able to afford a car. President Obama and the others who imposed this program know only their rich donors, and are ignorant of the millions of people their policies had thrown out of work but are now trying to get back on their feet again financially.

Peters warns that the regime also could go after old cars: “Here is the backdoor that will be used to effectively outlaw older cars, including antique cars — but also just older late-model cars. They won’t be prohibited outright, probably. Rather, they will be prohibited from being used for everyday transportation. You’ll be allowed to keep your pre-OBD III car. You just won’t be allowed to drive it — except, perhaps, to the occasional old car show. Or they may just require that all pre-OBD III cars be ‘retired’ after a certain period — and then rendered inoperable by having their engines filled with silica or some such, a la Cash for Clunkers.

“In this way, everyone will be forced into the system of mass control/mass surveillance. It has been a source of frustration in certain quarters that it’s still possible for the average citizen to drive a car built before catalytic converters and computers (and air bags and all the rest of it) became mandatory or de facto mandatory. There are dangerous asocial types out there who prefer such cars, which are paid-for, simpler and can often be kept running for years for next to nothing. That annoys both the TPTB — and probably also the car industry, which wants you in a new car, not a paid-for older car. The big combines will be among the most ardent proponents not merely of OBD III — but that cars without OBD III be ‘retired’.”

Big Brother not only is watching you. He’s the nastiest backseat driver ever.

The following first appeared in City Journal California.

FEB. 2, 2012

By STEVEN GREENHUT

California’s ongoing budgetary and political dysfunction has spawned a host of reformers backed by wealthy donors. The latest scheme, released with much fanfare in late November, is a report produced by the Think Long Committee for California and funded by billionaire Nicolas Berggruen. It’s called “A Blueprint to Renew California,” and it leaves much to be desired.

Most of Think Long’s proposals—the creation of a “citizens’ accountability committee,” additional spending on infrastructure and education, streamlining the environmental-permitting process—are window dressing for the main one: a $10 billion tax increase, imposed through a ballot initiative that would go before voters in 2012. And then, after it gets voters to sign off on the tax hike, the committee (like many in California’s majority party) wants to rein in the voter-initiative process. Berggruen and Think Long believe that the key to renewing California is to raise taxes on almost all Californians. Their plan would make the state’s tax code less progressive by trimming the corporate tax rate and imposing a new sales tax on services. The goal: to provide still more revenue to a state government that’s already bloated and wasteful.

Conventional Thinking

Think Long released its utterly conventional recommendations with a burst of self-congratulation: “At a time when political leaders in both Sacramento and Washington seem hopelessly mired in gridlock, the committee has shown that difficult bipartisan compromise can be reached if politics is set aside and the public interest is put first.” These words might be more persuasive if Think Long weren’t composed of so many politicians who wielded power during the period when California’s budgetary problems became unmanageable. The committee’s members include former governor Gray Davis, bounced from office in the 2003 recall election; former assembly speakers Bob Hertzberg of Los Angeles and Willie Brown of San Francisco; and former state supreme court chief justice Ron George. Other advisors include former governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, current lieutenant governor Gavin Newsom, and Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Most of these are poster children for what’s wrong with California; they are an unlikely group of saviors.

The report ignores the Golden State’s real problems: excessive government spending and dominance by public-sector unions and other special interests. The closest that Think Long comes to acknowledging them is three perfunctory paragraphs at the report’s end, which cite the pension crisis crushing municipal governments and offer this solution: “We recommend that the governor, legislature and local government officials make it the highest priority to work with public employee unions to find ways to address the long-term costs of pensions and the unfunded liabilities that have already been built up.” That’s as far as it goes.

Prison Costs

Nothing in the report comes close to articulating major reforms that would help the state stretch its dollars. For instance, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office recently reported that the cost of incarcerating inmates in California has more than doubled over the past decade, the result not only of court decisions regarding inmates’ health care but also of escalating compensation costs for correctional officers. A braver committee would have considered prison privatization or constraining the influence of the noxious California Correctional Peace Officers’ Association, which resists even modest reforms and holds outsize influence over both parties.

Even soft-pedaling, Think Long provoked the ire of the California Teachers Association. The CTA resents the committee’s proposal to junk Proposition 98—which directs 40 percent of the state’s budget to education from kindergarten through community college—even though the report goes on to propose an extra $5 billion for the schools from other sources.

Every would-be reformer knows that something is wrong with California’s budget and political process. But most have tended to be left of center and have offered ceremonial, symbolic reforms that don’t get to the heart of the state’s problems. Think Long is the latest example, and its “blueprint,” like the work of its many predecessors, is likely to be soon forgotten.

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

California Gov. Jerry Brown may have met his moment of infamy on a Feb 1 TV show.  He said, “California is losing manufacturing jobs at a rate no faster than the rest of the country.”

Brown’s claim is not backed up by data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.  California lost manufacturing jobs at a higher rate than competing states.  Here are the percentage and absolute number of manufacturing job losses in competing states over the last decade:

Manufacturing Job Losses in Competing States

California lost 15 percentage points more manufacturing jobs than Nevada and 10 percentage points more than Texas.  More significantly, California lost 411,300 manufacturing jobs over the decade.  That is more than the 280,100 for Nevada, Texas, Oregon and Arizona combined.

Brown continued, “This is the place where Facebook started, where Hewlett-Packard started, where Steve Jobs built Apple Computer just a few miles from where we’re sitting. This is a place of innovation.”

But Apple and Hewlett Packard are companies that have out-sourced almost all their computer component manufacturing to China. In the 1970s, Jobs and his Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak scrounged parts for their early computers from the leftovers of HP and other manufacturing giants. They couldn’t do that nowadays unless they moved to China.

And Facebook wasn’t “started” in California. It was started at Harvard University. It only moved out here later because founder Mark Zuckerberg wanted to live and work among the top companies and geniuses of his industry. Hasn’t Brown seen “The Social Network“?

Facebook IPO

Brown mentioned Facebook because its IPO is expected to net a $500 million tax windfall for California’s coffers. But to be prosperous, a state needs to produce more than high-tech jobs for people with high IQs.

The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates once said, “Nobody is qualified to become a statesman who is entirely ignorant of the problems of wheat.”

One might say that California’s politicians cannot be ignorant of the problems of manufacturing and claim to be qualified to find solutions to unemployment.

With the value of the dollar diluted by Federal Reserve policy, California could re-capture some industries from overseas.  But what is Gov. Brown doing to bring this about?

He continues to back the Bullet Train to Nowhere. And he’s implementing AB 32, the jobs-killing Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.

Curiously, the program Brown appeared on, “The War Room,” is hosted by Jennifer Granholm, the former Michigan governor. During her time in office, her policies emptied the Great Lake State of manufacturing jobs, as Chrysler and GM went bankrupt. No wonder she didn’t press Brown on his anti-manufacturing policies.

When it comes to manufacturing, California needs leadership, not a smooth TV conversationalist who claims to model his policies on the ancient Greek ruler Aristides.

By KATY GRIMES

Anyone involved in state politics would concede that it would be a cold day in hell when Democratic legislators vote to cut school funding, especially to schools in their own districts. But that it exactly what happened on Tuesday.

This week, the Assembly Budget Committee passed SB 81, a fast-tracked bill that supporters say would restore the trigger cuts in the Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget to the Home to School Transportation program. By doing this, legislators reversed a $248 million school bus and transportation cut, and transformed it into a reduction that instead targets cuts in each of the state’s K-12 school districts, more “equitably and evenly.” Or so they say.

The 27-member committee passed SB 81 with a vote of 20-5, with two abstentions; 15 Democrats and five Republicans voted in favor of the cuts. Five other Republicans voted no.

The day before, the Assembly passed AB 1172, by Assemblyman Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, to make it more difficult for charter schools to be approved by school districts, based on a nebulous definition of “negative fiscal impact” to the district.

It has been a tough two days for California charter schools.

Budget Woes

Last summer, the Legislature passed a majority-vote budget that relied on “trigger” cuts, if by December 2011, revenues were not at the levels that were expected when the budget was enacted.

SB 81 “restores a reduction of $248 million to the HTST program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 and replaces this with a reduction of $248 million to school district, county office of education and charter school funding,” the bill’s analysis states.

But if the bill was equitable, fair and even, why single out charter schools for the funding reduction?

California’s public charter schools do not receive any of the state’s home-to-school transportation funds. Instead of just taking money back that had been previously allocated to traditional public schools for transportation, this would be just a sizeable budget take-away for the charter schools.

Underfunding Charter Schools

The Legislative Analyst’s Office just released a new report, “Comparing Funding For Charter Schools and Their School District Peers,” and not a moment too soon. The report is two years overdue, according to charter school advocates.

The report found that charter schools have been substantially underfunded compared to traditional public schools. “Completely closing this funding gap in 2012-13 for the roughly 440,000 charter students projected statewide would cost $133 million,” the LAO reported.

Add this new cost onto the disproportionate cuts charter schools have faced since 2008, and it appears that there are many lawmakers who don’t want charters around.

Charter schools are funded at a base year rate, with 2008 as the base. But many charter schools were either not in existence, or very new in that year. Jed Wallace, CEO for the California Charter Schools Association, said this can cost charters as much as $1,000 per student in state funding.

“On top of that reality, charter schools are blocked from borrowing the same tax revenue notes as traditional public schools,” Wallace explained. “They borrow at a 1-2 percent rate. We have to go to capital markets and pay 15-20 percent interest.”

Supporters and Opponents

Assemblyman Brian Nestande, R-Palm Desert, asked that a representative from Gov. Jerry Brown’s office comment on the bill, which reverses one of the trigger cuts in Brown’s budget. “The governor is okay with the current version of the bill,” reported Michael Cohen with the Department of Finance.

“I am frustrated with a lot of other members,” Nestande said to the committee. “This is not a new issue. Some districts are getting disproportionately hit. It should have been addressed previously and was not.”

Nestande said after the hearing that while the state has to fix this problem with the budget we have, charter schools are deliberately short-changed.

The governor proposed creation of a new block grant funding program for K-12 schools, from which schools could choose to have bus service if they need it. Nestande said that the governor’s proposal would allow school districts manage their own affairs, including transportation needs. Some school districts have serious transportation issues, and others do not.

“It’s a catastrophic problem in my district and in many other rural parts of California,” said Assemblyman Wesley Chesbro, D-Arcata. “Garberville students have no other options for going to school. And there are no public transportation systems. For some parents, it would be three-hours to and from school,” Chesbro added.

“There are 770 square miles, and one high school,” said Dr. Paul Stanton, Superintendant of the Humbolt Unified School District. “And there are no sidewalks.” Several officials from the Humbolt School District traveled six hours in school buses to attend the hearing, along with many Humbolt area school children.

Supporters of SB 81

SB 81 had many union supporters at the hearing, including the California Teachers Association, the Los Angeles Unified School District, State Superintendant of Schools Tom Torlakson, the California School Boards Association, the California School Transportation Officials and the California Labor Federation.

While the transportation cut would hit some rural districts disproportionately hard, Torlakson has not actively addressed this issue.

“Enough was enough,” Torlakson said in response to Brown’s announcement of the elimination of home-to-school transportation. “It’s a sad day for California.”

‘Taking hundreds of millions of dollars from our schools — on top of the $18 billion in cuts they have already suffered — will only make life harder for students in California’s chronically underfunded schools,” said Torlakson in December, when it became clear that the state budget trigger cuts would go into effect.

Torlakson had a representative at the hearing on Tuesday, but she merely stated his support for the bill.

Undermining Charter Schools

Public charter schools have never been fully funded by the state, and do not receive all of the block grant funds that the state’s traditional public schools receive. The LAO report confirms this.

With passage of SB 81, instead of cutting bus service, an across-the-board cut of $42 per student would take place for all public school students.

But charter schools are ineligible for bus money and are inequitably funded by the state. Charter schools would also be cut $42 per student, adding to the $301 per-pupil shortfall charter schools already have.

“The wheels of the bus are falling off the majority vote budget we just passed. We had other options of where to spend the money in the budget,” said Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point. ”The districts I represent, I called virtually all of the superintendents from the larger districts, and not one of them comes out a winner. This will go on and on. And the only reason is, we’re out of money.”

Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Ceres, said his district will also be hit hard. He said, “We have enough money to do anything we want, just not everything. It’s a matter of priority.”

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

How “crude” of them.

Tax activists in California are pushing a deceptive “oil severance tax for public education” for the November 2012 ballot to increase funding for K-12 public schools, junior colleges and state universities. They’re calling it the “Tax Oil for Education” measure.

Tom Elias wrote a column in the Jan. 31 Hanford Sentinel, “Need Grows for ‘Tax Oil for Education’ Initiative.” He said, “One thing that hasn’t changed is that California remains the only oil producing state in America with no severance tax.”

Technically, this is only half true.  Yes, California does not have an official “oil severance tax.”  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, an oil severance tax is defined as: “a tax levied by a state on the extractor of oil intended for consumption in other states.”

But according to economists William G. Hamm and Jose Albarro, California’s relatively high corporate income tax rate and sales tax rate on crude oil production substitute for an “oil severance tax.” It is a myth that California has a tax loophole on crude oil.

The corporate income tax rate in California varies from 15 percent to 35 percent depending on gross revenues. The California sales tax base rate is 7.25 percent on top of the corporate income tax.

Average Crude Tax

California’s taxation of crude oil is about “average” compared to the top oil producing states.

According to Hamm and Alberro’s study, “A Comparison of Oil Tax Burdens in the Ten Largest Oil Producing States,” the top oil producing states use different types of taxes on crude oil production.  Some impose property taxes, some corporate taxes, some income taxes, some an “oil severance tax” and others a mix of taxes.

California is about equal with Oklahoma, Kansas, Utah, Alaska and Texas in its overall oil-tax rate. And California has a modestly lower oil tax rate than Colorado, Louisiana and Wyoming.

If California enacted a proposed 9.9 percent oil severance tax rate, the effective combined tax rate on oil it would be about 40 percent higher than Wyoming’s, which is the state with the highest oil tax rate.  And California’s crude oil tax rate would be about double that of Alaska, a state with an average oil tax rate.

Moreover, neither Wyoming nor Alaska has a state personal income tax. And according to the Tax Foundation, Wyoming has the fourth-lowest tax rate of the 50 states, and Alaska the rock-bottom lowest rate. By contrast, California’s tax rate ranks 44th – that is, sixth worst.

So, Elias is wrong to maintain that California is getting away with no taxes on oil producers. But California’s crude oil tax rate is roughly equal to that of Alaska and Texas.

Gasoline Prices Won’t Rise?

Elias also maintained that “the cost of a gallon of gas will not rise noticeably because of a severance tax.”

Here Elias substituted the word “cost” for “price.”  Sure, the price of gasoline might not rise at the pump if it is double-taxed by California.  Elias wrote, “Oil companies still price gasoline based on their worldwide costs rather than the expense of drilling in any one locale.

That’s only partly true, as can be seen by driving over to Arizona. As of today, Feb. 1, the average price of gas in Arizona is $3.40 a gallon, while the average price in California is $3.74 a gallon. Due to higher taxes and the special formulas required for California gas, we pay 37 cents per gallon more, or 11 percent.

Elias igorned that people don’t pump oil into their cars. They pump gasoline, which has to be refined to local regulatory requirements, and whose price is set locally. California regulations also set specific standards for gasoline sold in California. That somewhat isolates our market. For high-taxed California crude that is refined here and sent to local gas stations, the price inevitably would rise for consumers because of the new tax.

Elias maintained that “drivers in the Czech Republic will share in the cost of a California severance tax.” In that case, why not raise the tax 100 percent? Or 1,000 percent? Let the Czechs pay it!

Elias wrote, “And so on. California gets no benefit to speak of from oil produced here — despite the fact it ranks seventh among the states in oil production, gasoline prices here are the highest anywhere in the nation.”

“No benefit to speak of?” How about the 9,200 workers in “oil and gas extraction” in California, according to data from the California Employment Development Department? Those people pay taxes on their incomes, sales and homes. Elias should put down his laptop and walk around this great state of ours. He would notice oil pumps and refineries where real people do real work, and pay real taxes.

A new tax on crude oil would raise costs for production, possibly reducing production of California oil, thus killing jobs. Fewer production and jobs would lower the economic base on which all taxes are paid. Oil companies would shift production elsewhere. The fired workers would not pay taxes, but go on welfare and start soaking up taxes. There’s no such thing as a free lunch, goes the old saying. And there’s no such thing as a free tax.

Elias also failed to tell his readers that California already has the second highest retail gasoline tax on consumers in the United States: 50.5 cents per gallon.

The Tax Would Pay for Pensions, not Schools

According to Elias, “The money raised could only be used for class size reductions, instructional materials like books and computers, hiring new teachers and rehiring some who have been laid off, plus restoring class offerings that have been cut.”

But according to John Fensterwald, an education financing analyst for the Silicon Valley Education Foundation, there would be little upside if increased taxes for schools passes.  This is because about half of the taxes would just pay back money advances that need to be reimbursed.

And according to veteran California journalist Dan Walters, Gov. Jerry Brown is hiding his real tax strategy by playing a game of “chess” with school funding.  Not only would only about half of any tax increase for schools go for education, the other half would free up other state general funds to pay for such items as the gap in public pension funds for teachers.

While public opinion polls show voters favorable to taxes for schools, they are not in favor of a pension fund bailout.

Tax Could Deceive Voters

Elias ignored a basic rule of government economics: all money is fungible. You can’t cordon off one part of government spending from everything else. They funds all flow together like the crude oil in a gigantic oil tanker.

The biggest financial crisis facing state government is the $498 billion owed to the pension funds. That’s where any future tax money will be drained. It doesn’t matter what are the intentions of those backing more spending on education, or what are the views of misled voters.

Elias wrote, “The question now is whether voters who constantly tell poll takers they would gladly support new taxes to fund education will put their votes where their mouths have been.”

But the real question is whether the “Oil Tax for Education” can be revealed to voters as what it really is: the “Gas Price Hike for Government Pensions.”

By CHRISS STREET

State Controller John Chiang shocked California legislators today when he sent a letter announcing that the state will run out of cash on March 8. That is, unless Legislature allows state Treasurer Bill Lockyer to delay $2.4 billion in payments to universities, counties and Medi-Cal, while borrowing another $3.3 billion from Wall Street bankers.

The controller’s announcement comes just two weeks after California Gov. Jerry Brown gave his State of the State speech to the Legislature and then immediately hit the road in a two-day campaign swing through Southern California to tout his November ballot initiative to raise taxes on all Californians by $7 billion.  At a stop with 50 of Orange County’s top business leaders and CEOs, the governor outlined how he was already making severe budget cuts, reorganizing state government and implementing a 12-point pension reform plan.

Brown said he offered these actions as credibility for asking business to support his November tax initiative.  The governor added that he welcomed California’s population growth and assured his audience that the state’s future is bright.  Brown reiterated his support for the nation’s first high-speed rail system and for expeditious completion of the environmental review on a proposed project to fix the state’s water delivery system.

The lawmakers had been assured by the Brown administration’s Department of Finance that the state had sufficient cash reserves through June 30, the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year.

But Chaing emphasized that, for the first six months of the fiscal year, state tax revenues came in $2.6 billion below budget and spending came in $2.6 billion more than budget. Total shortfall: $5.2 billion.

The controller’s announcement came on the same day the Assembly Budget Committee approved and sent to the floor legislation already passed by the state Senate that would supposedly fund the state until the end of the year by empowering the Treasurer to borrow $865 million from other segregated California trust funds.

Out of Funds

Chaing warned that the state would be unable to make timely payments to vendors and other governmental agencies of at least $730 million beginning on March 8 and lasting through approximately April 13. Furthermore, Chaing warned that the state needed to have at least a $2.5 billion reserve to handle the timing of large payments through the end of June.

The Sacramento Bee quoted Democratic Assemblyman Bob Blumenfield of Woodland Hills that the $5.4 billion shortfall was small relative to the $10 billion that state leaders were prepared to borrow last year. But Republicans questioned the ability of the state to pay back the accounts.

The Bee reported that Michael Cohen, chief deputy director of Brown’s Department of Finance, said the state would pay back special funds whenever programs need the money to operate.  Cohen also said the state is spending more money than expected because courts have blocked some cuts, while some savings may come later in the fiscal year than forecasters predicted.

This new budget crisis comes at a very difficult time for the governor after he travelled the state selling his tax initiative as preventing draconian funding cuts to popular K-12 schools.  Although early polling of voters had indicated growing support for the initiative, Brown’s credibility may collapse as voters learn the November tax increase initiative appears only to fund this year’s budget shortfall and will still result in draconian cuts to schools.

By CHRISS STREET

California’s wildly expensive AB 32, Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is supposed to prevent man-made global warming. AB 32 took effect Jan. 1 — just in time for it to suffer another devastating scientific blow. Temperature data from 30,000 worldwide measuring stations analyzed by the United Kingdom‘s Meteorological Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit confirmd that the rising temperature trend in world temperatures ended in 1997 and the world may be facing a mini-ice-age.

The new research follows a commentary I published four months ago in the Big Government blog, “Nature Journal Discredits Global Warming.”  The article reported on the Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, publishing of the “definitive study” by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, rebuking anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming and attributing temperature variances to the effects of cosmic rays from the sun.

When my article appeared, conservatives gushed with praise.

But liberals, including the New York Times and Media Matters, threated to ruin me as a fraud for stating that one study could undermine the “proven science of man-made global warming.”  The controversy has continued to rage on the internet as a current search of Google generates 5,230,000 results and a search of Bing generates 12,600,000 results.  In spite of the powerful CERN study, on October 20, 2011, the California Air Resources Board voted to quickly implement the provisions of AB 32 as the first and only comprehensive limit on greenhouse gases in the United States.

Following release of the new Met and University of East Anglia data, leading climate scientists told The Daily Mail of London over the weekend that after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading toward a “grand minimum” in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

11-Year Cycles

The Mail quoted an analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface. The analysis suggested that solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.  These sunspots are generated from a massive circulating current of fire (hot plasma) within the Sun, referred to as the Great Conveyor Belt.  It has two branches, north and south, each taking about 40 years to perform one complete circuit.  Researchers believe the turning of the belt controls the sunspot cycle.  That is why a circulation slowdown impacts climate predictions.

Recent weather station measurements of cooler temperatures are consistent with the current peaking of “Solar Cycle 24,” which is running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.  Solar Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, is predicted to be a great deal weaker still.

Dropping Temperatures

According to the Meteorological Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830, when average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2 degrees Centigrade (-3 degrees Fahrenheit).

Professor Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology commented that water temperature cycles in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans “have insufficiently been appreciated in terms of global climate.”

When oceans cooled from 1940 to 1970, the climate cooled.  When the Pacific cycle warmed after 1970, the climate warmed.  But the ocean “flipped” back from warm to cold mode in 2008 and the Atlantic is also thought likely to flip in the next few years.  In 2011, world temperatures fell by more than half a degree, as the cold water “La Nina” effect re-emerged in the South Pacific.

The result was widespread outbreaks of bitter cold and frequent snow storms, both across the United States and Europe.  Said Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, “We’re now well into the second decade of the pause.  If we don’t see convincing evidence of global warming by 2015, it will start to become clear whether the models are bunk.  And, if they are, the implications for some scientists could be very serious.”

As my article stated in September, “After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs, the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory seems headed for the dust bin of history.”  As the preponderance of science continues to turn against man-made global warning, it is now time for Californians to turn against AB 32.

Feel free to forward this Op Ed and or follow our Blog at www.chrissstreetandcompany.com

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

Gov. Jerry Brown just proposed a new idea for financing California’s $100 billion high-speed rail project: Use the fees from the state’s Cap and Trade emission taxation program to fund it.

This new hybrid between Cap and Trade and High-Speed Rail is likely to be dubbed “Cap ‘N Train.”

What this new proposal would do is transfer billions of dollars in higher costs for everything in California that has to be manufactured or trucked anywhere, thus creating air emissions. In turn, these higher costs will be transferred to an unproductive train project that will take riders away from commercial airlines serving the Bay Area and Los Angeles.

High-Speed Rail is Redevelopment in Another Guise

Brown has recently gotten some respect from political conservatives and school-funding advocates for shutting down redevelopment agencies because they rob schools of property taxes.  But it is apparently OK to create yet another redevelopment project because it won’t drain the state budget needed for public schools.  What Jerry Brown’s right hand takes away, his left hand re-creates in another form.  This proves the principle of California bureaucracy: “Problems can’t be solved — just shifted around.”

Brown is reportedly trying to sell his High-Speed Rail project to the skeptical Legislature. Earlier this month, Brown floated an idea to use $1 billion in Cap and Trade taxes to plug his state budget deficit.  But $1 billion yearly at today’s bond interest rates would only finance about $20 billion of the estimated $100 billion needed for the High-Speed Rail project.  Rider fees on the new train would not come anywhere near paying for the system.

Brown said that if the Legislature didn’t approve his proposal there “always would be the ballot initiative” route to financing the High-Speed Rail.  Brown was apparently referring to Proposition 71, which financed $3 billion in redundant stem-cell research. The cost to pay back those bonds, with interest, is $6 billion.

Using Ballot Initiative to Grow Stem Cells and Fast Trains

The state’s stem cell agency — with the private sounding title of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine — is soliciting public comments for the idea to come back to the voters to ask for another $3 billion in bond financing in 2014 when their current funds run out.  As reported by Wesley J. Smith at the “Secondhand Smoke” blog, thus far only those who have received grants for stem-cell research have been added to the list of witnesses.

The way things are going, we could call all those proponents of using Cap and Trade taxes for High-Speed Rail the “High-Speed Freeriders”: those enjoying the benefits from a collective effort but contributing little or nothing to it.

By KATY GRIMES

The carburetor is losing the battle in California. Instead of acknowledging that auto designers and manufacturers are continually refining the internal combustion engine for efficiency, global warming activists want to scrap the engine.

In an attempt to rid the world of global warming, on Friday the California Air Resources Board announced new rules adding more regulations to require auto manufacturers to offer even more zero-, or very low-emission cars such as battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and plug-in hybrid vehicles in California, by 2018.

The board also increased future emission standards for all new cars, making them the most stringent in the nation. In an attempt to remove smog-forming pollutants from new vehicles by 75 percent, and reduce total auto emissions by 30 percent, one-in-seven cars sold in California must be ultra-clean, and low- or no-emission by 2025. California is now dictating standards to the entire auto manufacturing industry.

According to the California Air Resources Board, new regulations requiring ultra-clean cars sold in California “will save drivers money on fuel, create jobs, cut smog and greenhouse gases, make California a world leader in clean car technology.” They don’t say how.

But given CARB’s history, there has been no discussion or even acknowledgment of the free market. Instead, auto makers are mandated to build products that consumers are not mandated to buy, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers reported after CARB’s announcement. “Mandates create a disconnect in the marketplace,” it said.

The California New Car Dealers Association and other auto-related industry groups representing businesses that sell cars reported that CARB overestimated consumer demand for electric vehicles and other so-called “zero-emission vehicles.”

Auto dealers and industry groups estimate that $3,200 would be added to the average price of a car or light truck because of the new regulations. Consumers have been slow to purchase the expensive, clean cars.

“We expect to go beyond that with other incentives we are hoping to be able to offer in terms of direct incentives to people who buy these cars (such as) rebates and credits,” CARB Chairwoman Mary Nichols said during a phone conference after the announcement.

More Regulations

CARB voted on the rules following a two-day hearing of the board that included presentations and testimony from automakers, environmentalists, politicians and consumer advocates. The rules will affect vehicles starting in the 2017 model year.

The rules are part of California’s very aggressive plan to reduce climate warming emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

“That’s actually a relatively modest goal, but that’s all that we’re mandating,” Nichols said during the conference.

But many in the auto industry say that because California is the largest car market in the U.S., CARB is dictating to the rest of the country by being able to set policy, independent of federal rules and regulations.

Few news stories report that new “clean” cars make up well below 1 percent of the entire car market. Because of the less-than-enthusiastic response from consumers, California was forced to scale back its Zero Emission Vehicle goals in the past because vehicle technology lagged state officials’ unrealistic plan for getting more clean cars on the road.

But those days are over.

California New Car Dealers Association said that demand for these types of vehicles has been overestimated by CARB. It appears they are now being ignored. Instead,  Nichols said that car manufacturers were in favor of the new rulings. “Probably the most heartening aspect of this whole rulemaking was the level of cooperation that we received from the industry. Overall, the degree of support for the package was just extraordinary,” Nichols said.

The cost to drivers outside of California is rarely addressed. Eleven unelected CARB members are dictating what kind of cars Americans in the other 49 states drive. The premium cost of those cars defies America’s free market system.

There is talk outside California on the auto news sites of Commerce Clause violations by CARB, and the potential for lawsuits filed outside of California in Federal District courts.  Given that CARB was established because Southern California has a unique ecosystem and unique air quality problems, imposing uniform national emissions standards outside of California is dramatically impacting the entire country.

Who Is CARB?

Five of the 11 California Air Resources Board members are required to come from regional air quality boards within California. Four of the remaining six are required to have some kind of related expertise. Currently, only two of the board members have any private-sector experience and only one comes from industry.

One of the CARB board members, John Balmes, M.D., is an environmental medicine specialist, and researches the effects of pollution on the lungs. The legal expert, Dorene D’Adamo, is a Democratic congressional aide for Congressman Dennis Cardoza, and specializes in environmental law. The automotive expert, Daniel Sperling, has a background in environmental engineering, alternative energy and the environmental aspects of transportation.

The governor appoints members of CARB with consent of the Senate. And the deck is clearly stacked.

Because fuel-efficient cars generate less tax revenue for governments, there have already been discussions in California about taxing cars per mile driven, and installing devices that report where drivers travel.

CARB’s answer to the decreased tax revenue is to force auto manufacturers to create more of the “clean” cars, which will eventually be mandated to drivers by California officials. The cars cost so much more than consumers are currently paying for autos that increased revenue from car sales taxes will more than offset any revenue declines from lower gas taxes.

What would Milton Friedman say?

Global ‘Warming’?

Last week the Wall Street Journal ran an article, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” signed by 16 notable climate scientists.

“There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy,” the scientists wrote. “In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 ‘Climategate’ email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’

“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause.”

Climate Lysenkoism

The scientists reported that, while the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted or terminated.

“This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union.,” the scientists wrote. “Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”

The scientists say that the entire reason for the “incontrovertible” global warming mantra is about money — “Follow the money.”

That’s certainly the case in California, where the CARB bureaucracy provides fat salaries and fatter pensions to “climate” bureaucrats, as well as tax-funded disasters such as the now-bankrupt Solyndra.

JAN. 30, 2012

By LARRY SAND

January 22 through 28 marked the second annual National School Choice Week. While much of the rest of the country can celebrate some successes since last year, California’s education reformers often spend their days fighting rearguard actions just to preserve hard-won but modest gains. Nationally, the 2010 elections galvanized school reformers and led to such a quick succession of victories that the Wall Street Journal dubbed 2011 “the Year of School Choice,” while City Journal similarly called it “The Year of the Voucher.” By contrast, in California, the 2010 elections signaled new legislative assaults on charter schools, on open public school enrollment, and on parent empowerment.

It’s an amazing turnabout. As the Journal’s editors noted, no fewer than 13 states enacted school-choice legislation in just the first half of last year—creating new voucher programs in Indiana and expanding existing ones in Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio; eliminating charter school caps in North Carolina and Tennessee; and authorizing new tuition tax credits in Louisiana and Florida. Manhattan Institute senior fellow Marcus Winters noted last autumn how in the previous decade, the expansion of school-voucher programs had “slowed considerably” because of defeats at the ballot box and in state courts. Now, however, “the push toward vouchers is coming from a new breed of reform-minded politicians from both parties. Once a taboo subject, vouchers are now talked about openly on the campaign trail, and politicians are hiring reformers to run high-profile school systems.” Democrats who see school choice as a civil-rights issue have adopted what was once exclusively a Republican concern.

Where’s the Golden State?

Where was California in all of this? With a high school dropout rate hovering around 30 percent and a majority of college-bound graduates requiring remediation in English and math, the Golden State would appear to be a prime candidate for serious reform. But with a calcified state Legislature, an impenetrable state education code, a sclerotic bureaucracy, a powerful state teachers’ union, and a governor who owes his 2010 election to union support, preservation of the status quo is almost a given.

California does have a fairly extensive system of public school choice, but meddlers in the Legislature continually imperil it. California boasts more than 900 charter schools—public schools allowed to operate outside the bounds of typical school district regulations and union contracts—and that’s more than any other state. While most studies have shown charters to be better than traditional public schools, some say there is no difference between them. At worst, charters do the same job as traditional public schools for less money. Only about 15 percent of California’s charter schools are unionized, which is why the California Teachers Association—the top political spender in the state—has made a priority of eviscerating the existing laws rather than expending time and resources trying to organize hundreds of independent schools. Gov. Jerry Brown, in an encouraging display of political fortitude, stood up to the CTA last autumn when he forced legislative leaders to withdraw a series of anti-charter bills and vetoed several other bills that would have undermined charters’ independence.

Homeschooling Survives

Homeschooling similarly survived an onslaught from the state education establishment. About 200,000 homeschoolers reside in California today, though in 2008 it appeared that the number would be reduced to zero. The Second District Court of Appeals ruled that all instructors of children must have a state teaching credential, thus disenfranchising practically every homeschooling parent. A higher appeals court reversed the ruling five months later, claiming that homeschools are, in effect, private schools where no teaching credential is needed. While homeschooling represents the ultimate in parental control, relatively few families can afford to have one parent stay at home and become a full-time teacher.

A novel approach to school choice in California is the Parent Empowerment Act, better known as the parent trigger. The law, passed in 2010 by a single vote in both legislative chambers, lets parents of students in failing schools file petitions to force changes in school governance. The beauty of the law, written by former Democratic state Sen. Gloria Romero, is that it bypasses the traditional bureaucratic and union entanglements. If at least half of parents at a qualifying school sign a petition, the local district must undertake one of several prescribed options, including shutting it down or converting it into a charter school. Needless to say, the law—a bête noire for the entrenched education special interests—was attacked and nearly derailed. But buses full of determined parents lobbied heavily last year before the state Board of Education in Sacramento, and the parent trigger survived. Parents have “pulled the trigger” only twice so far—most recently two weeks ago—so it’s difficult to assess its impact. Even if more parents exercise the petition option, the law limits the number of schools eligible to be triggered at 75 (even though 1,300 schools qualify as failing).

‘Opportunity Scholarships’

What California needs most and doesn’t have are vouchers, which most advocates now call “opportunity scholarships.” Under a voucher system, a portion of public money designated to educate a child would follow the student to a school of the parent’s choosing. It could be a traditional public school, a charter school, or a private school. Seventeen such programs exist across the country, and after two decades, we have a good idea of vouchers’ effectiveness. Greg Forster, a senior fellow with the Foundation for Educational Choice in Indiana, reviewed ten empirical studies of voucher programs. According to Forster, “nine find that vouchers improve student outcomes, six that all students benefit and three that some benefit and some are not affected. One study finds no visible impact. None of these studies finds a negative impact.”

Voucher opponents insist that such programs “siphon money away from public schools.” What they’re saying, in effect, is that private schools will perform better at the expense of public schools. True, public schools would lose some money under a universal voucher system, but there’s no evidence that this would make them any less effective. In a separate review, Forster discovered that “[19] empirical studies have examined how vouchers affect outcomes in public schools. Of these studies, 18 find that vouchers improved public schools and one finds no visible impact. No empirical studies find that vouchers harm public schools.” Even in the world of public education, competition works.

Initiatives

California has twice tried and failed to enact voucher legislation through the initiative process. Voters decisively rejected voucher measures in 1993, and again in 2000. The reasons for these lopsided losses are many. But with more states and the District of Columbia embracing opportunity scholarships, and greater public appreciation that the educational status quo is unacceptable, perhaps Californians would be more receptive to a voucher law now, even a limited one. Of course, should such an initiative make it to the ballot, the teachers’ unions would spend every penny and every ounce of human capital to keep vouchers from becoming a reality.

California would also benefit from a tax-credit scholarship program, which would allow individuals and corporations to receive a state tax credit for making donations to nonprofit organizations, which in turn would use the money to fund private school tuitions. Currently, 16 states offer some form of tax-credit scholarship program. But as with vouchers, tax credits could be a tough sell in a state where legislators are averse to any form of “privatization.”

If California is to afford its citizens a top-flight public education, as it once did, voters and policymakers must come to grips with the fact that education should be first and foremost about children. For far too long, the emphasis in public education in the state has been on the perks given to adults. As long as special interests remain in charge, California’s children won’t get the education that they deserve.

Larry Sand, a retired teacher, is president of the California Teachers Empowerment Network.