Lawmakers can't slip up making rainy-day fund

The easiest way to save money -- at least the most effective -- is to bank it before you see it. Not only does that make sure the money goes into savings, it also forces you to live on less.
That's the theory behind 401k plans and similar long-term savings programs: the money comes out and goes into savings before the rest of the paycheck hits the checking account.
That approach, but on a much larger scale, is behind a proposal floated by California Gov. Jerry Brown, who Wednesday called a special legislative session to make changes in a rainy-day measure voters will decided in the November election.
Brown wants to replace the current ballot measure. That proposal seeks to channel more state income into the emergency fund and would make it harder to tap except in emergencies, such as earthquakes and wildfires.
Brown's proposal would allow more flexibility for future governors and lawmakers. He wants to fund the emergency account with part of the capital gains revenue when it spikes, as it is this year with revenue collections running $1.4 billion ahead of projections. That money would be reserved for school spending and paying down debt and unfunded liabilities.
California voters actually approved a rainy-day fund 10 years ago, filling it with 3 percent of the state's annual revenue. But, according to Brown's office, the current system places no restrictions on when the fund can be tapped and requires deposits even in years of budget deficits. Talk about a bone-headed restriction.
"We simply must prevent the massive deficits of the last decade, and we can only do that by paying down our debts and creating a solid rainy day fund," the governor said in a statement.
Republicans have criticized Democrats, claiming they are really just trying to weaken the current measure, ACA4, on the November ballot.
Brown will be forced to deal with GOP concerns since changing the existing measure requires a super-majority vote of the Legislature. The Democrats hold such a majority in the Assembly, but with three Senate Democrats under suspension Brown's party no longer holds a super-majority of the upper chamber seats.

In reality, those majorities have kept Republicans on the legislative sidelines for months and Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway said she is pleased GOP lawmakers will have an opportunity to be heard.

"Republicans will not support a rainy-day fund that diverts from the initial purpose to actually save money, or one that allows the majority party to dip into the savings as much as they want, whenever they want," Conway said in a statement.

It's good Republican ideas will be seriously aired. No one party should hold a legislative stranglehold on the state. That being said, the Republicans have an obligation to work across the aisle and with the governor's office to fashion a ballot measure that provides funds when the economy turns south but makes it hard -- but not impossible -- to tap those funds when really needed.

 

"Kill switches" by default, not by option

Smartphone makers have decided, gee, maybe we can install "kill switches" on the devices as a way to stem thefts.
The about-face by the wireless industry comes as pressure grows from lawmakers and the public. More than 1.6 million Americans had smartphones, tablets or other devices stolen in 2012, according to Consumer Reports. The theft of mobile devices is the nation's No. 1 property crime.

No option but an obvious fix.

The theory is "kill switches" will staunch the incentive to steal the devices by rendering them inoperable. "Kill switches" enjoy overwhelming support. A Creighton University survey found that 99 percent of those asked thought carriers should allow all consumers to disable stolen phones and 93 percent said that it shouldn't cost them extra to do so.
And there's the rub: the wireless industry has long complained that "kill switches" would be costly to install. That's why the industry is trying to get out ahead of a legislative mandate. Under the plan announced by major carriers, the new technology will be available on devices manufactured after July 2015. It will allow users an optional, reversible "kill switch" that would render the device inoperable and wipe out data stored on it. If the stolen device is recovered, the owner could return it to working condition and restore the data using a password.
That's a good first step.
But, and here's the problem, the industry wants an "opt in" system, meaning consumers would have to make the effort to download the needed software or activate factory installed software.
It might be cynical to suggest it, but there's no real upside from the manufacturers' perspective to stemming cell phone thefts since they know consumers will quickly show up at retailers and buy another device.
That has some legislators decrying as inadequate the wireless industry's new found concern.
"For the solution to have an impact on the street where the crimes occur, it must be ubiquitous," California state Sen. Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, told the San Francisco Chronicle.
Leno has authored a bill that would require smartphones to come with a kill switch by next year.
"It should come enabled when you purchase your phone and the retailer activates it. That is fundamental to communicating to potential perpetrators that their stealing these phones will be a worthless venture," he said.
"Kill switches" might be compared to seat belts. They must be there and they must be used. We don't allow drivers the right to "opt in" to having seat belts in their cars. Given the growth of crime directly related to mobile electronic devices we shouldn't put the burden on consumers by making them jump through more hoops to protect themselves and their property. It's hard enough already to get users to password protect their cell phones. The "kill switch" solution should be enabled by default.

Being low-polluters isn't enough

We're about to become part of the problem, but we tried -- we really did.
In a few days we expect to take delivery of a gasoline-powered lawnmower. It replaces a three-year-old battery-powered model purchased through an environmental program designed to get pollution-prone mowers off our lawns.

Battery-powered mowers must improve.

Living in California's Central Valley, a geological bowl where pollution settles when the air is still and especially when the temperature climbs, retiring gasoline-power polluters makes sense. In this case, it made dollars and sense. By trading in our old gasoline model, the local air pollution control district -- that means the taxpayers -- provided a voucher than paid about three-quarters of the cost of a new battery-powered model.
There was an immediate problem: Consumers had only one lawnmower choice and the make picked by the air district was among the lowest rated around. It still is. Not only did the machine perform poorly -- a new, re-chargeable battery was required within a year and the safety features on the machine quickly became inoperable -- the manufacturer refused any help. The only time the manufacturer was responsive was when we had to replace the battery. They were more than happy to take more of our money.
Moving toward electric powered yard equipment makes sense. Gasoline-powered mowers are heavy polluters. But unless the battery-powered machines perform at a level comparable to gasoline-powered machines, getting consumers to buy them won't happen.
And the machines simply don't measure up. Product rating services consistently rank them much lower than gasoline machines. That's a shame.

The horror in the midst of so much good

At another time I might have been on that bus.
The thought came to me as I read in horror the accounts of the crash this week on Interstate 5 in
Glenn County, about 100 miles north of Sacramento.
Ten people died when a northbound tour bus was struck head-on by a southbound FedEx tractor-trailer rig that inexplicably crossed the median into the northbound lanes. Officials say it could be months, if ever, before the cause can be determined.


The aftermath of the I-5 crash

The bus had left the Los Angeles area headed for a place so completely different comparisons are hard. It was taking a bunch of eager kids to Arcata, a small, coastal town nestled in the redwoods, trees so tall you can fall over backwards trying to stare up at their tops. Arcata is home to Humboldt State University, among the smallest of the CSU campuses and certainly the most isolated.
It takes time to get there and it can take time to get used to the place. But once you do Arcata and Humboldt become part of your DNA.
Many of the young people on the bus were considering attending the university. Many also will be or would have been the first in their families to attend any university. Like me, they were poor kids from educationally-challenged backgrounds. Humboldt reached out to them, actively recruited them. All had been accepted at Humboldt. The trip, a preview weekend, was part of the university's attempt to close the deal.

Founders Hall on the HSU campus

Last fall, my wife and I met about a dozen friends in Arcata on homecoming weekend, which coincided with the university's 100th anniversary. Old friends and old memories. Most of us met our future spouses on that campus more than 40 years ago.
When I arrived in the mid-60s I was a scared kid so stupid I landed on campus without even money to register for classes, and barely enough money to feed myself until the dorm cafeteria opened. Only a phone call from my girlfriend's mom back home to the college president won me a fee waiver until my first grant and loan money was disbursed. Yes, it is possible to be that naïve.
Humboldt was, is, that kind of place. It's a small, personal school that takes youngsters and arms them with tools to make it through. All 12 of the people we met at homecoming last fall can attribute part of their future success to that school (although you might get an argument from Frau Doktor Richter who despite her best efforts could never drive the vagaries of German verbs into my brain).
A lot of people feel this way about their college. They are places that stress you and stretch you at a time when you're undergoing a lot of mental and emotional growth.
My feelings about my Humboldt years are not particularly unique. The place itself is. That's why I was at once saddened and proud of my school's connection to the I-5 tragedy. I was saddened about those killed and injured and the hole that leaves in the hearts of their family and friends. I was proud that my school reached out to a bunch of first-in-their-family kids with an invitation to grow and learn.
I was that kid years ago. I could have been on that bus.

School chief teaches unfortunate lesson

OK, how do these things happen?
The superintendent of a 6,600-student south state school district has been suspended by the same board that gave him a salary about twice that of the guy who runs the nearby LA school system with about 10 times the number of students.
Trustees Centinela Valley Union High School District voted 5-0 to suspend Jose Fernandez pending an investigation of his $674,559 salary. Are they going to investigate themselves?
As superintendent, Fernandez oversees three high schools in the Los Angeles suburbs of Hawthorne and Lawndale. The campuses have a combined enrollment of about 6,600 students.
Los Angeles Schools Superintendent John Deasy, who oversees more than 1,000 schools with an enrollment of more than 640,000 students, is paid $393,106 a year. And, in case you're wondering, President Obama's annual salary is $400,000 (of course the president has to live in public housing).
In February the Torrance Daily Breeze published Fernandez's salary, prompting outrage from district parents and teachers. After the disclosure, Fernandez said he was willing to take a pay cut. He said he hoped to work that out at a school board meeting scheduled for next week.
"I'm just disappointed that I wasn't able to work out an agreement with them," he told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday. He didn't say how much less he was willing to take and he wasn't any more forthcoming Friday when The Associated Press tried to reach him.
District trustees did the right thing -- finally -- but only after it was disclosed that they'd given Fernandez the breathtaking salary in the first place.
This takes us back to the original question: how do these things happen?
They happen when the public and press get lazy and stops watching and questioning authority.
It's the opposite of the old Ronald Reagan bromide, trust but verify.
Maddeningly unrealistic as Fernandez's salary obviously is, his is but the latest example of what can happen when public officials -- some, not all -- are left to their own devices. Just this week a Los Angeles Superior Court judge sent to prison the first of what likely will be a parade Bell city officials who milked that small city dry.
Angela Spaccia was sentenced 11 years in prison and ordered to pay more than $8 million in restitution to the city. Bell's former chief executive and five ex-council members await sentencing.
Spaccia, the city's assistant city manager, cornered a salary of $564,000 a year. In addition, she was found cashing out 26 weeks of vacation each year, effectively boosting her salary by 50 percent.
Bell, California has a population of 35,477, according to the 2010 census.
The Bell officials were convicted of corruption. Nobody is suggesting Fernandez broke any laws. What seems wrong here is an attitude of "it-ain't-our-money-so-who-cares?" on the part of district trustees and Fernandez's willingness to feather his nest at taxpayers' expense.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/11/6316891/high-paid-california-school-official.html#storylink=cpy

Making history fit your needs

For those who believe the study of history is wasted, consider former South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint.
Even by the willingness of some politicians to rewrite, misstate or just make up American history for their own purposes, DeMint is in a class all his own.


Former Sen. Jim DeMint

"Well the reason that the slaves were eventually freed was the Constitution, it was like the conscience of the American people," the head of the Heritage Foundation said on the Truth in Action radio show last week.
"Unfortunately, there were some court decisions like Dred Scott and others that defined some people as property, but the Constitution kept calling us back to ‘all men are created equal and we have inalienable rights’ in the minds of God. But a lot of the move to free the slaves came from the people, it did not come from the federal government. It came from a growing movement among the people, particularly people of faith, that this was wrong. People like Wilberforce who persisted for years because of his faith and because of his love for people."
And then DeMint's red-meat line: 
"So no liberal is going to win a debate that big government freed the slaves. In fact, it was Abraham Lincoln, the very first Republican, who took this on as a cause and a lot of it was based on a love in his heart that comes from God."
Any high school history student can punch holes in DeMint's skewered history, even the back-of-the-room slug who slept through half the class sessions.
To point out one of the more obvious errors, DeMint claims that the words "all men are created equal" appear in the Constitution. Perhaps DeMint should pull out the pocket-size edition of the document politicians of his ilk are fond of carrying. Those words are not in that document. They can be found in the Declaration of Independence, penned by the slave owner Thomas Jefferson.
Words that DeMint could find in the original Constitution if he would only look relegated some Americans to the status of three-fifths personhood, a dance-with-the-devil compromise fashioned to birth the nation. It was only after the Civil War that the document was amended (and it was nearly a century later that civil rights and voting rights for all citizens were codified by Congress).
Republicans love to call themselves the "party of Lincoln," a statement that ignores party realignment. Republicans of Lincoln's time were much different than those who belong to that party today. Where are the reddest of the red states today? The Deep South, a place where they love their history, especially when spun with a certain mythical turn that allows inconvenient truths to drop away.
That, perhaps, is why DeMint and others curl or ignore historical facts. Doing so makes it so much easier to rotate history for their own devices. In this case, DeMint tries to exonerate pro-slavery elements and make it seem they really wanted the pernicious institution to end.
Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano recently made the same claim, declaring that slavery was a dying institution and that Lincoln should have tried "purchasing the slaves and then freeing them."
Lincoln did offer "compensated emancipation" to the Border States that remained in the union "and any Confederate states interested," according to Columbian University's Eric Foner, one of the nation's foremost Civil War historians.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, "but not to his own facts.”
DeMint and Napolitano are among a notable group who never let facts get in the way of their opinions. That becomes a problem when they state their opinions as facts and then spin their yarns to a too often unsuspecting and gullible public. Studying a little history is one way to arm yourself against the myth-makers like DeMint.
   

Balancing justice for famlies, taxpayers

Anybody who believes crime doesn't pay isn't paying attention.
The latest example comes from Los Angeles where a veteran building inspector sentenced to prison last month in an FBI corruption case will continue to receive his pension. His take: $72,000 a year. That's $6,030 a month plus a monthly health care subsidy of $1,469.
Samuel In, 66, last year admitted he took more than $30,000 in bribes while working as a senior inspector. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison but only after a federal prosecutor argued against leniency and mentioned his "substantial" pension.
How, you ask, can a convicted felon keep a public pension, especially if the charges stem from the person's discharge of his/her public duties?
Sometimes they can't, at least it's harder than it used to be. Two years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring public employees convicted of a felony to give up retirement benefits earned during the period when their crimes were committed.
That law doesn't apply in Los Angeles because it operates under a voter-approved charter and manages its own pension system. Some council members are making noise about changing the LA system, but In's attorney said his client "earned that pension" during his 37 years of public service and he did a lot of volunteer work.
Frankly, you have to ask how many other bribes he took while he was serving the public and volunteering.
The argument In's attorney made is the usual plea. That argument is often coupled with plea for leniency because without the pension the innocent spouse and children will be left destitute.
The innocent family argument surfaced most recently in the case of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, 51, who faced sexual assault charges involving a junior officer. Prosecutors urged the military judge to dismiss the general -- a move that would have sent a clear message through the ranks about the seriousness of the case. Sinclair's attorneys argued the general should be allowed to retire, so he could keep his pension (an estimated $831,000 if he lives to be 82). To do otherwise would punish his family, they said.
Sinclair was spared any jail time, was fined $20,000 (plus $4,160 restitution for unauthorized credit card use) and reprimanded. He said he plans to retire.
Moves are afoot, at least in the military, to protect innocent family members when a service member is convicted of a crime or is otherwise ejected from the military and loses pension benefits. Congress in January ordered the Pentagon to study the feasibility of providing "transitional benefits" to families in these cases. That study, due out next month, is to consider such issues as how long such benefits might last and who qualifies.
That's a start. Certainly punishment should not be visited on innocent family members. But certainly taxpayers should not be asked to pay the pensions of public officials when they stand convicted of crimes directly related to their public duties.