Hold on to Your Wallets Or Leave the State: Taxes Are Going UP

This is gut check time for young families, small businesses and the California middle class.  You have a big decision to make, quickly.  Even with a State budget surplus, prior to the expected Spring, 2019 California recession, taxes are going up and plans for 2020 is to demolish the value of commercial and industrial property by a massive property tax increase on these properties—the ballot measure to approve this increase has already qualified for the November, 2020 ballot.

“About three-quarters of those tax increases were approved, including 90 percent of the 168 placed on the ballot in California cities. They are facing sharp increases in mandatory payments for city employee pensions – although that factor was rarely mentioned in the pre-election campaigning.

Instead, most local government tax campaigns stressed improvements in popular police, fire and park services. However, most of the proposals were deemed as general taxes, which allows them to be approved by simple majority votes and also allows them to be used for any purposes, not merely those cited by proponents.

This is not a murder—the people of California have decided to commit a mass suicide.  Higher taxeds, mean higher cost of living.  The taxes are not going to make life better, they are being spent to keep CalPERS open and issuing checks.  At this point it is almost a Ponzi scheme.  Oh, don’t forget gas taxes go up again in 2019 and in 2020 they go up by about 72 cents a gallon.  Time to leave or to fight?

newsom

Election boosts advocates of higher taxes

By Dan Walters, CalMatters,  11/15/18

This month’s election was good news for those who believe Californians’ taxes, while already among the nation’s highest, should be increased.

Voters elected Gavin Newsom, who has an expansive and expensive agenda, as governor, and also solidified Democrats’ supermajorities in the Legislature, giving them, at least on paper, unfettered power to raise taxes for that agenda.

Voters’ willingness to raise taxes was most starkly demonstrated, however, at the local level, where the vast majority of nearly 400 city, county and school district tax measures (including bonds that require new property taxes to repay) were endorsed by voters, according to a tally by Californiacityfinance.com.

About three-quarters of those tax increases were approved, including 90 percent of the 168 placed on the ballot in California cities. They are facing sharp increases in mandatory payments for city employee pensions – although that factor was rarely mentioned in the pre-election campaigning.

Instead, most local government tax campaigns stressed improvements in popular police, fire and park services. However, most of the proposals were deemed as general taxes, which allows them to be approved by simple majority votes and also allows them to be used for any purposes, not merely those cited by proponents.

The state constitution says that taxes meant for specific purposes require two-thirds voter approval, but last year, the state Supreme Court cast a cloud on that provision, implying in a Southern California marijuana case that if special purpose tax measures are placed on the ballot by initiative petition, rather than by local governments themselves, the two-thirds vote threshold might not apply.

Pro- and anti-tax organizations want a definitive judicial ruling on the issue and two measures passed by San Francisco voters this year, one in June and the other this month, might provide it.

Measure C, placed on the June ballot by an initiative petition sponsored by members of the city’s Board of Supervisors and approved by 51 percent of its voters, imposes a 3.5 percent tax on local commercial rents, such as office buildings, and a 1 percent tax on warehouse rents.

Entitled “Universal Childcare for San Francisco Families,” the measure dedicates tax proceeds to child care and early childhood education.

This month, another Measure C, also placed on San Francisco’s ballot by initiative, imposes a 1.5 percent gross receipts tax on large businesses located in the city – clearly aimed at high-tech corporations – and dedicates revenues to helping the homeless. It won about 60 percent approval but the proceeds won’t be spent until after a court case involving the first Measure C is resolved.

Commercial property owners and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued, contending that June’s Measure C is clearly a special tax, since its proceeds are designated for one purpose, and thereby needed a two-thirds vote.

If the plaintiffs win, both Measure Cs will be voided. If they lose, the door will be open to even more local tax initiatives dedicated to single purposes but requiring only simple majority votes,

Meanwhile, another conflict over local taxes is simmering.

Los Angeles County voters overwhelmingly approved a “parcel tax” on “impermeable land” through which water cannot pass, such as driveways and parking lots. Proceeds would be used on water improvement projects.

However, the California Taxpayers Association filed a complaint with the state Fair Political Practices Commission, alleging that the county board of supervisors violated state election law by spending taxpayer money on a campaign for the water tax.

Were that complaint to be upheld, local government drives for higher taxes could be sharply curtailed.

California must focus on ending poverty. Here’s a path

President Obama was right, “elections have consequences.  Trump got two great Supreme Court Justices, a massive tax cut and tax relief, and much more.  In Sacramento in 2019, the consequence of the November 6th election will be the implementation fo taxes and programs further pushing us into a totalitarian/socialist State.  What programs will be pushed and probably passed?

“We believe our ideas can help create meaningful change as Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom and the new Legislature take office:

  • The state needs a comprehensive strategy for growing quality jobs and developing a skilled workforce. We need to create one million more living wage jobs by expanding programs that prepare workers for our fast-changing economy.
  • We must increase the supply of reasonably priced housing.
  • We must ensure there are adequate water supplies for agriculture and all regions of the state.
  • We must prepare California’s children for a changing world and workplace. California needs to revise the iconic Master Plan for Higher Education to address the needs of the 21st  century.
  • The safety net needs to be transformed to better meet basic needs and more effectively lift those who can achieve financial independence.

The Left has created the policies that caused the high priced housing.  Water supplies?  Guv Brown stopped them from going to the farmers.  Change those polices and we change the economic conditions for all Californians.  Expect the abuse of facts by the Left to be the cause of more taxes, less freedom.  Elections have consequences.

price cost expensive money

My turn: California must focus on ending poverty. Here’s a path

 

By Lenny Mendonca and Pete Weber, Special to CALmatters, 11/14/18

In California, jobs are being created, unemployment is low, housing prices are robust, and many people are doing well.

The California economy is the envy of the world. But things are far from perfect, as the 18 million Californians who live in or near poverty can attest. That’s a number that would comprise the nation’s fifth largest state.

California’s middle class has declined from 60 percent of the population in 1980, the year we elected Ronald Reagan as president to 48 percent today.

If you were a young adult in 1980, you could reasonably expect to be able to buy a home in the neighborhood where you were raised.

Today?

Not so much.

The fundamental challenge that clouds the future of the Golden State is the widening chasm between the haves and the have-nots. The issue of income inequality is holding California back, and we need to act.

And we may be ready to do that.

An ambitious legislative plan to end child poverty is underway, as a result of the passage of Assembly Bill 1520. The bill creates the Lifting Children and Families Out of Poverty Task Force.

California Forward, which manages the California Economic Summit, has created recommendations for reviving the California Dream and moving more Californians toward an equitable, sustainable and prosperous Golden State. We believe our ideas can help create meaningful change as Gov.-elect Gavin Newsom and the new Legislature take office:

  • The state needs a comprehensive strategy for growing quality jobs and developing a skilled workforce. We need to create one million more living wage jobs by expanding programs that prepare workers for our fast-changing economy.
  • We must increase the supply of reasonably priced housing.
  • We must ensure there are adequate water supplies for agriculture and all regions of the state.
  • We must prepare California’s children for a changing world and workplace. California needs to revise the iconic Master Plan for Higher Education to address the needs of the 21st  century.
  • The safety net needs to be transformed to better meet basic needs and more effectively lift those who can achieve financial independence.

Shortcomings in our education system are having a significant impact on poverty. Out of 1,000 California 9th graders, only 305 get a four-year college degree. We need a system that better aligns and leverages our pre-K system, our K-12 system and our tripartite system of higher education to get Californians ready for kindergarten, through college and re-skilled when necessary to keep pace with the rapidly changing needs of our economy.

Pilot projects across California provide promising results and high returns on taxpayer investment and are worthy of being scaled up to reach more people.

Promise Neighborhoods, Sonoma’s Upstream Investments and Fresno’s Bridge Academies are three examples. Each is a nonprofit that seeks to help people rise out of poverty by, for example, offering parents tips on how to approach job interviews or get health care for their kids.

We should create a Partnership to End Poverty—a state-county collaborative that would allow the state to work with willing counties to identify and nurture new approaches to help adults secure living wage jobs with a future. It also would document and advocate for the changes necessary, so these new models can be used across the state.

When California Forward’s California Economic Summit annual meeting is held in Santa Rosa starting Thursday, the issue of upward mobility will be front and center. The summit, which attracts hundreds of private and public sector leaders from California’s diverse regions, has been amplifying the need for action on this issue for the past several years.

We will be discussing setting goals consistent with California values at the Hyatt Regency in Santa Rosa Thursday and Friday. Summit attendees will support legislation defining tangible metrics for upward mobility—and establishing a system—one we call the California Dream Index—for tracking progress.

We will also continue to support and promote ongoing initiatives to close gaps in skilled workers, livable communities and well-paying jobs.

Upward mobility is a growing and complicated crisis and it’s not going to be an easy fix.

But it’s a task well worth undertaking. Join us.

Lenny Mendonca, lenny@themendoncas.net, and Pete Weber, pete@1weber.com, are co-chairs of the California Forward Leadership Council. They wrote this commentary for CALmatters.

 

Report Finds California Flush With Cash, For Now

When Jerry Brown signed the budget last June, he noted that California, not the nation, was headed into a recession.  Yet, his budget raised taxes, making it even more imperative for folks to leave the State.  While we have a massive surplus—in great part due to the Brown tax increases and the Trump tax cuts, we are facing the results of the Sacramento Democrat  economic policies.

“The agency estimates the state will have an operating surplus of about $14.5 billion for the 2019-2020 fiscal year, which could be used for one-time spending on programs or be added to the already fat cash reserve of $14.8 billion.

“It is difficult to overstate how good the budget’s condition is today,” the agency’s report stated.

Newsom will have the option to sock away the surplus for the next recession, which many economic analysts predict may arrive as soon as the beginning of 2019. Current Gov. Jerry Brown preferred to save rather than spend, which accounts for the fiscally robust condition of the state.

It is coming—how soon?  If the Democrats put in, as planned multi-billion dollar expansion of free health care for illegal aliens, push the single payer health care effort, continue to finance the choo choo to nowhere, add the billions government education is demanding (while test scores continue to decline) and the other new programs, the businesses will see this and execute their exit strategy—get out before they lose everything.  The GOP will retake seats if the Democrat recession is understood by the public.

whitehousemoney-300x166

Report Finds California Flush With Cash, For Now

MATTHEW RENDA, Courthousenes,  11/14/18

 

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) – California Governor-elect Gavin Newsom will inherit a state with a rosy financial outlook, according to the latest analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office released Wednesday.

The agency estimates the state will have an operating surplus of about $14.5 billion for the 2019-2020 fiscal year, which could be used for one-time spending on programs or be added to the already fat cash reserve of $14.8 billion.

“It is difficult to overstate how good the budget’s condition is today,” the agency’s report stated.

Newsom will have the option to sock away the surplus for the next recession, which many economic analysts predict may arrive as soon as the beginning of 2019. Current Gov. Jerry Brown preferred to save rather than spend, which accounts for the fiscally robust condition of the state.

If Newsom does decide to save, he could have a reserve of $30 billion by the middle of 2020.

But the Democrats, who enjoy a supermajority in the Legislature and a governor fresh off a landslide victory could clamor for the funds to allocated to projects like universal health care, the homelessness crisis or addressing the striking income inequality persisting in the state.

Furthermore, two major infrastructure projects – the California Water Fix delta tunnels and the state’s effort to link the state via high-speed rail – require billions from the state to come to fruition.

The price tag for the Water Fix project, a pair of tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to bring water to the south state, is between $15 and $17 billion. The high-speed rail project is currently slated to cost $77 billion.

But lawmakers also noted the analyst’s report said the surplus is only a prediction and carries a caution that a recession could quickly erase the gains incrementally made since the economy bottomed out in 2007.

“I’m glad to see the fiscal outlook is still bright for the state, but the LAO report also warns we don’t have enough saved up to weather a recession,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, who chairs the Assembly Budget Committee. “We must make smart investments and proceed with caution to protect programs for the long run. No one wants to relive the devastating budget cuts we were forced to make only a short time ago.”

Ting alluded to the $27 billion deficit that Brown inherited when he assumed office in 2011. Brown and the Legislature made steep cuts to a number of programs, including the redevelopment agencies that had cropped up in cities and counties during the early part of the millennium.

The analyst’s office did say the cash reserves are sufficient to weather a small recession or downturn in the economy, but anything of the magnitude of the Great Recession will require significantly more savings.

“Not only have we pulled the state from the depths of the Great Recession and made significant cuts in critical programs, we are also well prepared to withstand the next recession without major cuts or middle-class tax increases,” said California Senate President pro tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego.

But unlike Ting who advocated for putting the surplus into savings, Atkins advises “making strong new investments in our schools, universities, infrastructure, environmental-protection efforts and poverty reduction programs.”

 

 

America first: 878,000 millionaires added in last 12 months, ‘Trump effect … relentless’

The good news is that the Trump economic policies created almost one million new millionaires in a year.  That also means many others were benefited by the tax cuts—jobs created, businesses grew and the economy has the best data and statistics in more than a generation.  Yet, the media continues to act as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party by refusing to report the news.  Instead, making wild accusations about the President and his policies.

“”Looking at the number of millionaires, we see that there are 42.2 million millionaires worldwide, which is up 2.3 million over the previous 12 months. Our research indicates that the United States added 878,000 new millionaires — representing around 40 percent of the global increase — to its already sizable stock,” the bank said.

The report showed that U.S. wealth grew at 6.5 percent, higher than the world average of 4.6 percent, and has extended a pattern that started during former President Barack Obama’s administration.

“Another prominent feature of the world wealth outlook this year is the seemingly relentless rise in household wealth in the United States,” said the report.”

We are about 720 days before the next Presidential election.  Now is the time to promote the results of the Trump policies.  Our future depends on us starting this campaign today.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks to supporters as he takes the stage for a campaign event in Dallas, Monday, Sept. 14, 2015. (AP Photo/LM Otero)

 

America first: 878,000 millionaires added in last 12 months, ‘Trump effect … relentless’

by Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner,  11/14/18

 

 

The booming U.S. economy, jump-started by the 2017 GOP tax cut, has created 878,000 more millionaires in just the last 12 months, according to an international wealth report from Credit Suisse.

“The boom goes on,” cheers the Credit Suisse’s Global Wealth Report.

“Looking at the number of millionaires, we see that there are 42.2 million millionaires worldwide, which is up 2.3 million over the previous 12 months. Our research indicates that the United States added 878,000 new millionaires — representing around 40 percent of the global increase — to its already sizable stock,” the bank said.

The report showed that U.S. wealth grew at 6.5 percent, higher than the world average of 4.6 percent, and has extended a pattern that started during former President Barack Obama’s administration.

“Another prominent feature of the world wealth outlook this year is the seemingly relentless rise in household wealth in the United States,” said the report.

It tried to suggest that the Trump economy is too hot to continue, but conceded that there is no end in sight.

Said the report:

“Total wealth and wealth per adult in the United States have grown every year since 2008, even when total global wealth suffered a reversal in 2014 and 2015. The United States has accounted for 40 percent of all increments to world wealth since 2008, and 58 percent of the rise since 2013. While not wishing to cast doubt on the ‘Trump Effect’ on financial markets, it seems inevitable that the uninterrupted spell of increasing wealth in the United States will come to an end at some time. Fortunately, there are signs that wealth inequality is no longer rising, which should mitigate the impact of any setback on the middle classes.”

And when it comes to wealth distribution, the U.S. has more people with wealth above $100,000 and more millionaires.

“Wealth distribution in the United States indicates a high fraction of adults with wealth above $100,000 compared to the world as a whole. The percentage of people with wealth at higher levels is even more striking. The United States has the most members of the top 1 percent global wealth group, and currently accounts for 41 percent of the world’s millionaires,” it added.

Delingpole: ‘We Really Muffed’ It – Scientist Admits Error in Hyped Global Warming Study

At least one scientist is willing to admit a mistake.  Note you have not seen the politicians or media folks admitting the mistake.  Thanks to laws and regulations regarding “global warming”, this is a trillion mistake.  Money that could be used to make life better for our kids and families instead going to kill jobs and make the cost of living higher.  Silly rules, like outlawing plastic straws—while government gives away millions of syringes so druggies can kill themselves—make us shake our heads about the mental capacity of those in charge.

The co-author of a much-hyped, peer-reviewed, alarmist paper claiming to have found a huge, unexpected build-up of global warming heat in the oceans has admitted: “We really muffed” the calculations.

According to the paper by Laure Resplandy et al, published this month in the prestigious journal Nature, a lot of the missing heat from global warming — 60 percent more than hitherto thought — has been absorbed by the oceans.

Naturally, this shocking discovery caused much excitement across mainstream media and was widely reported by environmental correspondents as proof that the global warming crisis was more serious than evah.

However, their exultant doom-mongering has been shortlived. An independent analyst, Nic Lewis, examined the paper and quickly spotted it was based on flawed math.”

We are paying billions for this “flawed math”.  We need real science, not junk science.

220px-Al_Gore

Delingpole: ‘We Really Muffed’ It – Scientist Admits Error in Hyped Global Warming Study

James Delingpole,  Breitbart,  11/14/18

The co-author of a much-hyped, peer-reviewed, alarmist paper claiming to have found a huge, unexpected build-up of global warming heat in the oceans has admitted: “We really muffed” the calculations.

According to the paper by Laure Resplandy et al, published this month in the prestigious journal Nature, a lot of the missing heat from global warming — 60 percent more than hitherto thought — has been absorbed by the oceans.

Naturally, this shocking discovery caused much excitement across mainstream media and was widely reported by environmental correspondents as proof that the global warming crisis was more serious than evah.

However, their exultant doom-mongering has been shortlived. An independent analyst, Nic Lewis, examined the paper and quickly spotted it was based on flawed math.

As the Global Warming Policy Forum reported:

Independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis has uncovered a major error in a recent scientific paper that was given blanket coverage in the English-speaking media. The paper, written by a team led by Princeton oceanographer Laure Resplandy, claimed that the oceans have been warming faster than previously thought. It was announced, in news outlets including the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Scientific American that this meant that the Earth may warm even faster than currently estimated.

However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.

“If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.

In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.

“Their claims about the effect of faster ocean warming on estimates of climate sensitivity (and hence future global warming) and carbon budgets are just incorrect anyway, but that’s a moot point now we know that about their calculation error”.

Now, one of the paper’s co-authors, Ralph Keeling has gamely fessed up to the error — and hinted that this effectively invalidates the paper:

“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”

The central problem, according to Keeling, came in how the researchers dealt with the uncertainty in their measurements. As a result, the findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper’s conclusion about just how much heat the oceans have absorbed over time.

The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors. But Keeling said the authors’ miscalculations mean there is actually a much larger margin of error in the findings, which means researchers can weigh in with less certainty than they thought.

“I accept responsibility for what happened because it’s my role to make sure that those kind of details got conveyed,” Keeling said.

There are broader lessons here which — as so often before — are likely to be completely lost on the climate alarmist establishment.

One lesson is that climate skeptics are not scientific ignoramuses. They boast a huge range of independent experts like Nic Lewis who on many occasions have proved themselves more intellectually agile and better informed on climate science than the alarmist “consensus” gatekeepers in academe and at institutions like NASA and NOAA.

Another lesson is — as has been clear since Climategate — the peer-review system for scientific papers, especially if they have anything to do with climate change, is bust. Too often it is just a pal-review system in which chums on the climate change gravy train pass their colleagues’ work for publication nem con. Such is the appetite among alarmists for “evidence” that supports their doomsday thesis that the scarier it is, the more likely it is to get published.

Another lesson is that the mainstream media simply cannot be trusted to apply any kind of professional scrutiny to alarmist papers. No environmental correspondent, it’s true, would have had the advanced math skills that Nic Lewis used to find the paper false.

But the fact remains that there is not one science or environment correspondent attached to any mainstream media publication prepared to do their due diligence on global warming scare stories. They are all so wedded to the alarmist consensus that they scarcely even bother to alter the press release.

Finally, do not expect this humiliating retraction to be given anywhere near the prominence afforded the original story. This is how the climate scare machine works: the hysteria is only ever ratcheted upwards, never dialed down.

 

Amtrak to close Riverside call center, eliminating 550 jobs

It is a perfect storm, a combination of factors that is costing 550 Californians their jobs.  Technology has changed the way people have made AmTrak reservations—doing it online instead of using a call center.  We have a very high minimum wage—so AmTrak is going to a lower wage State and hiring a outside vendor—meaning no unions in charge.  Oh, the cost of doing business between California and Florida (a no tax State) makes this an easy decision.

“Griffin wrote that about 90 percent of Amtrak’s customers now book their travel online and that over the last five years, the number of calls received at contact centers has declined by close to 3 million calls. He wrote that “at our busiest time, only 25 percent of our agents are on the phone at the same time.”

Workers and union leaders who represent Amtrak employees, however, claim Amtrak has contracted with a third-party operator in Florida and are paying workers there less money. The minimum wage in Florida is $8.25. Griffin’s email does not mention the outsourced operation.

The memo did say Amtrak will sell the Riverside facility.”

Great—by selling the facility that puts government property back on the property tax rolls—that does help all of us!

 

By Jack Katzanek, Press-Enterprise,  11/14/18

 

Amtrak said Wednesday it will close its Riverside reservation center in January, laying off all 550 employees.

The company announced the move in a message emailed to workers Nov. 14. Operations in Riverside will cease  Jan. 18.

In the message, Tim Griffin, Amtrak’s executive vice president and chief marketing officer, said operations in Riverside would be consolidated with its reservation center in Philadelphia.

Griffin wrote that about 90 percent of Amtrak’s customers now book their travel online and that over the last five years, the number of calls received at contact centers has declined by close to 3 million calls. He wrote that “at our busiest time, only 25 percent of our agents are on the phone at the same time.”

Workers and union leaders who represent Amtrak employees, however, claim Amtrak has contracted with a third-party operator in Florida and are paying workers there less money. The minimum wage in Florida is $8.25. Griffin’s email does not mention the outsourced operation.

The memo did say Amtrak will sell the Riverside facility.

“We are committed to consolidating our real estate holdings, where it makes sense to do so,” Griffin’s email states. “From an operational efficiency and cash perspective, it is better to have many people at one location than smaller groups of people at multiple locations.

“When we divest facilities we own, like we will do with Riverside, we generate significant cash.”

Sal Rodriguez, president of Local 2511 of the Transportation and Communication Union which represents Amtrak workers in Riverside, said call center employees earn between $15 and $28 hourly.

Rodriguez said Amtrak is making it possible for some Riverside workers to relocate to Philadelphia, where operations will be expanded.

“They know people are not going to want to leave their homes and families in this area and move to Philadelphia,” he said.

Rodriguez added that he believes employees were misled this spring when told by the company that an outsourced operation would be created only to fill in when there was overflow work at existing call centers. “We thought that was just going to be to fill in the peaks and valleys,” he said.

An Amtrak spokesman told the Southern California News Group in June that the company was “seeking a business process outsourcer (BPO) to allow us to better meet variable service demands and lower our costs.”

“In general, Amtrak retains higher staffing levels to meet demand and our costs far exceed industry norms. Moving to an operation supplemented by a BPO will significantly improve our overall operation,” Marc Magliari, public relations spokesman for Amtrak Government Affairs & Corporate Communications, wrote in an email in June.

“No employee will be laid off as a result of outsourcing,” Magliari stated.

Dan Thomas, a retired Amtrak employee who worked at the call center for 18 years, said the company “is not being forthright.”  He said Amtrak claims it needs only one call center but is not mentioning the Florida operation because it’s not staffed by Amtrak employees.

“And the supervisors in Riverside went to Port St. Lucie, Fla., to train their replacements,” Thomas said. “I feel bad for those poor people out there.”

An Amtrak spokesperson reached by phone would not respond to questions. 

 

Blame Inept Bureaucrats And Environmentalists For California Wildfires, Not Global Warming

It is policy in California NOT to clear and clean brush from forest.  The policy is clear, you can’t cut and clear dead trees.  The policy of California is to keep the forest areas without any management, just allow the forest to grow naturally.  Of course, this means a small fire becomes a big one.  A big fire grows into a disaster—by Sacramento policy.

“Cliff Mass, a University of Washington climate scientist, studies wildfires and has focused specifically on those in California. Citing official state of California data, Mass points out in his Weather and Climate blog that, “the numbers of California wildfires over the past 30 years has declined––dropping roughly in half.” It is difficult to credibly assert that global warming is responsible for California wildfires when wildfires are currently much rarer than they were three decades ago.

Wildfires Aren’t Trending Upward at All

Mass further notes the total area burned has grown “slightly” during recent decades compared to the late twentieth century, with the trend too small to be significant. Moreover, the acreage burned “was as large or larger at the beginning of the 20th century as now.” At the beginning of the twentieth century, temperatures were lower than they are today, and there were no coal-fired power plants or SUVs.

“The bottom line of the real fire data produced by the State of California and in the peer-reviewed literature is clear: there has been no upward trend in the number of wildfires in California during the past decades,” Mass wrote. “In fact, the frequency of fires has declined. And in most of the state, there has not been an increasing trend in area burned during the past in most of the state, there has not been an increasing trend in area burned during the past several decades.”

Facts mean nothing to the Socialist Left and Fake News media.  They have a goal and facts can not be used.  The bigger the lie, the louder the lie, the longer they lie, the easier it is to get the public to believe them.  Sounds like how a totalitarian State operates.

VENTURA, CA - DECEMBER 5: A home is destroyed by brush fire as Santa Ana winds help propel the flames to move quickly through the landscape on December 5, 2017 in Ventura, California. (Photo by Marcus Yam / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Blame Inept Bureaucrats And Environmentalists For California Wildfires, Not Global Warming

The fact that wildfires are no more frequent or severe during recent decades is remarkable considering anthropogenic changes that should make wildfires more prevalent.

 

By James Taylor, The Federalist,  11/15/18

 

Global warming activists are shamefully exploiting the tragic and deadly California wildfires by pushing a false narrative that global warming is causing more frequent and severe wildfires. President Donald Trump stood up against this propaganda by pointing out that environmental activists’ agendas and local government ineptitude are more to blame for the wildfires than global warming.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, the environmental left, and the establishment media are vilifying Trump for this response. The objective facts, however, clearly support the president.

Cliff Mass, a University of Washington climate scientist, studies wildfires and has focused specifically on those in California. Citing official state of California data, Mass points out in his Weather and Climate blog that, “the numbers of California wildfires over the past 30 years has declined––dropping roughly in half.” It is difficult to credibly assert that global warming is responsible for California wildfires when wildfires are currently much rarer than they were three decades ago.

Wildfires Aren’t Trending Upward at All

Mass further notes the total area burned has grown “slightly” during recent decades compared to the late twentieth century, with the trend too small to be significant. Moreover, the acreage burned “was as large or larger at the beginning of the 20th century as now.” At the beginning of the twentieth century, temperatures were lower than they are today, and there were no coal-fired power plants or SUVs.

“The bottom line of the real fire data produced by the State of California and in the peer-reviewed literature is clear: there has been no upward trend in the number of wildfires in California during the past decades,” Mass wrote. “In fact, the frequency of fires has declined. And in most of the state, there has not been an increasing trend in area burned during the past several decades.”

“The story can’t be simply that warming is increasing the numbers of wildfires in California because the number of fires is declining. And area burned has not been increasing either,” Mass added.

Mass observes that the cause of the Southern California wildfire is not certain. Regardless, objective, long-term data show no increase in the number or acres burned by California wildfires in recent decades, and it is especially difficult to credibly blame global warming when national wildfire data strongly agree with the California data.

National Interagency Fire Center data document there has been no increase in recent years in the number of U.S. wildfires. The total number of acres burned has been somewhat higher than normal the past few years, but the number was lower than normal during the middle of this decade. In total, there has been no increasing trend.

Wildfires Are Not More Frequent And Severe

The fact that wildfires are no more frequent or severe during recent decades is remarkable considering anthropogenic changes that should make wildfires more prevalent. Mass observes that wildfires are a natural historical part of the ecology of California. There is an increasing human population; humans are starting most of the fires; forest mismanagement has allowed tree- and debris-choked landscapes; plus, people have brought invasive and highly flammable non-native species like cheatgrass into California that accelerate fires.

Much of this information was summarized this September when Brown hosted his Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco. Brown’s summit presented no scientific discussion, data, or evidence showing any link between global warming and wildfires. At the same time and at the same location, the Heartland Institute hosted and live-streamed a climate science rebuttal in which scientists summarized the evidence strongly contradicting the notion that global warming is causing more frequent and severe California wildfires. Brown would be well-served to watch the video and educate himself on what the science says.

So, if global warming is not to blame for the current California fires, what is? Mass observes that the likely cause of the Northern California wildfire (known as the “Camp Fire”) was strong winds causing a Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) power line to fail in the Feather River Canyon. At the site of the failed power line, high winds were forecast in advance.

“PG&E, even with very [high] winds forecast, decided not to de-energize their line––probably a big mistake,” notes Mass. “Our ability to forecast these wind events has become very, very good…The threat was clear. It is unfortunate that power lines appear[ed] to start the Camp Fire and that the lines were not de-energized before fire was initiated,” Mass wrote.

But there is more to the story than PG&E failing to de-energize a power line when very high winds were forecast. State and local government officials failed to provide aggressive warnings and responses when the fire began.

“Importantly, the winds were again highly predictable, poor warning were given to the communities,” Mass wrote. “And just as disturbing, local officials did not use the Amber Alert system to warn people of the exploding Camp Fire,” he added. People died when they were caught unaware and were unable to flee the fire. An Amber Alert from local officials could have saved lives.

This week, Trump issued an expedited approval of a major disaster declaration, unlocking federal resources and funding to aid California. He expressed sympathy with the victims and admiration for firefighters and first responders. Just as importantly, by threatening to withhold future grants if California officials do not come up with better land management practices, he served notice that he will not tolerate California government failing the people again.

James Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy and vice president for external relations at The Heartland Institute.

 

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Right To Be Angry About Amazon’s New HQ

Jeff Bezos is worth approximately $160 billion.  A couple of weeks ago the stick market took a big dip and he lost $16 billion, in one day.  Do not cry for him.  He just made up for it by stealing $1.5 billion from the people of New York and maybe another billion from the people of Virginia.  Stealing from government is made easy oif you are a large corporation. 

In this case it is not the Republicans arguing that theft of tax dollars is wrong—it is a socialist.

Who will benefit from these tax incentives? Certainly not taxpayers. It’s questionable whether the people living in the areas surrounding Amazon’s HQ2 will see any positives from the move.

Will Amazon hire locals? If not, how will the influx of new people impact the already astronomically expensive housing markets of the areas surrounding New York City and Washington D.C.? Will middle-class residents who are footing the bill for the retail chain’s special privileges be forced to relocate?

Using government to drive out generations-old communities in favor of wealthy coastal elites with six-figure salaries,which is the most likely scenario, is a perverse misuse of power. Ocasio-Cortez is right to be skeptical of a company that has a track record like Amazon’s.

Multi-billion corporations use their political power to steal.  At what point do we admit this is a bad policy—forcing city governments to bid against themselves, using tax dollars, to buy company locating in their community.  This is something conservatives and socialists can agree on.

amazon

Why Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Right To Be Angry About Amazon’s New HQ

The democratic-socialist from the Bronx is right. Amazon shouldn’t get billions in tax incentives.

 

By Bre Payton, The Federalist,  11/14/18

 

Amazon announced it will split its second headquarters between two locations — one in Crystal City, Virginia, a suburb just outside of Washington D.C., and Long Island City, New York. Both are rapidly gentrifying areas with housing prices on the rise. The retail giant announced it expects to receive “$1.5 billion in tax incentives for the 4 million square feet of office space” and expects to hire an estimated 50,000 employees to staff its new headquarters, NBC News reports.

In response to the announcement, Congresswoman-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez went on a tweet storm decrying taxpayer-funded cronyism and expressing concerns about how her constituents’ communities will be affected.

The democratic socialist from the Bronx is right to be outraged about the corporate welfare that threatens to price her constituents out of their own housing market.

Instead of quietly doing research and deciding on an area to put its second headquarters, Amazon announced it was going to create another hub and was looking for a place to move, sending cities into a feeding frenzy. Stonecrest, Georgia offered up a portion of the city to be renamed “Amazon” and to institute Bezos as the town’s permanent mayor. Boston offered the company a team of government employees, whose salaries would be paid with tax dollars, to exclusively represent the company’s interests.

By hyping every detail of its move and all the jobs it would create, Amazon created an environment in which politicians actually competed with one another over who was willing to cheat taxpayers more. The bidding process also gave away loads of information about cities’ transit systems and real estate markets to the company, Wired reports.

This isn’t the first cronyistic stunt Amazon has pulled. After Sen. Bernie Sanders called attention to the fact that many of Amazon’s employees relied on food stamps and other government programs to get by, the company announced it was raising its lowest wage. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos then promptly lobbied Congress to increase the federal minimum wage in an effort to force his company’s competitors, like Target and Walmart, to raise wages for their employees. In other words, Bezos attempted to use Congress as a tool to disadvantage his competitors.

John Stossel explains this in greater detail around the 3:20 minute mark in the video below.

Ocasio-Cortez Is Right To Question Amazon’s Effects

Who will benefit from these tax incentives? Certainly not taxpayers. It’s questionable whether the people living in the areas surrounding Amazon’s HQ2 will see any positives from the move.

Will Amazon hire locals? If not, how will the influx of new people impact the already astronomically expensive housing markets of the areas surrounding New York City and Washington D.C.? Will middle-class residents who are footing the bill for the retail chain’s special privileges be forced to relocate?

Using government to drive out generations-old communities in favor of wealthy coastal elites with six-figure salaries,which is the most likely scenario, is a perverse misuse of power. Ocasio-Cortez is right to be skeptical of a company that has a track record like Amazon’s.

Some conservatives chided Ocasio-Cortez’s critiques, saying that she failed to list any upsides to Amazon’s move. A company creating jobs and providing opportunities to more Americans is certainly something that should be applauded. But if those jobs cannot be sustained without tax incentives or other taxpayer-funded perks, how valuable are they really? Do we really want to live in a country where certain companies are treated differently under the law, are given special tax rates and perks, while others are not? Is it fair to compel local taxpayers to contribute to a scheme that will price them out of their own neighborhoods?

Asking these questions is important, as the answers help determine what kind of society we will live in. Ocasio-Cortez is right — we all ought to question the motives of a company that has a track record of abusing its power. And we ought to choose representatives, at the local and national level, who will serve the interests of their constituents over those of corporate hucksters.

Bre Payton is a staff writer at The Federalist.

FEINSTEIN’S RACE REVEALS A MAJOR TOP TWO PROBLEM”

Is it possible that Republicans could have elected Kevin DeLeon as a Senator?  Yup, thanks to Prop. 14 which kept a Republican from the ballot.  Could this be the catalyst to end this democracy ending election law?

“This race ended up tossing a monkey wrench into Top Two, the first time the system has not worked as planned.

Top Two, known to some as the “jungle primary,” puts the two leading vote-getters in California primaries into the finals, regardless of political party. The major parties despise this system because it cuts their organizational influence, as it did last spring when the state’s Democratic Party apparatus leaned to de Leon, but 70 percent of Democratic primary voters went instead for Feinstein.

Top Two supporters enjoyed the fact that their rules reduced party influence. They don’t mind that dozens of district elections for Congress and the Legislature have been one-party affairs since 2010, some involving two Democrats and others matching two Republicans, depending on which major party was dominant in any particular district.”

Now is the time for a serious discussion, among Republicans and Democrats about this this experiment in political manipulation.  What do you think?  Time for Prop. 14 to go?

Dianne Feinstein

FEINSTEIN’S RACE REVEALS A MAJOR TOP TWO PROBLEM”

 

Tom Elias, California Focus,

Ever since the 2010 passage of Proposition 14, Libertarians and members of other small but sometimes significant California political parties have griped about the lack of choices presented to voters in the state’s biennial November general elections.

Advocates of the “Top Two” primary election system set up by that eight-year-old initiative respond that it actually does provide runoff election choices, even if they’re often between different wings of the same political party.

Voters had just such a choice this fall in the contest between longtime incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former state Senate President Kevin de Leon. Feinstein represented moderate Democrats, de Leon the party’s more extreme leftist Young Turks.

This race ended up tossing a monkey wrench into Top Two, the first time the system has not worked as planned.

Top Two, known to some as the “jungle primary,” puts the two leading vote-getters in California primaries into the finals, regardless of political party. The major parties despise this system because it cuts their organizational influence, as it did last spring when the state’s Democratic Party apparatus leaned to de Leon, but 70 percent of Democratic primary voters went instead for Feinstein.

Top Two supporters enjoyed the fact that their rules reduced party influence. They don’t mind that dozens of district elections for Congress and the Legislature have been one-party affairs since 2010, some involving two Democrats and others matching two Republicans, depending on which major party was dominant in any particular district.

They have rejoiced in the fact that voters of the minority party, whose smaller numbers previously gave them little or no voice in district elections and a few statewide races, could moderate the way their representatives behaved once in office in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

But then came the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings for now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh, where Feinstein played a key role in getting #MeToo movement-style complaints about Kavanaugh’s alleged sexual misbehavior as a young man before the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she is the ranking Democrat.

Feinstein’s role infuriated many Republicans, who saw the claims about Kavanaugh as trumped-up falsehoods.

Rather than going for the more moderate Feinstein, who beat de Leon by a margin of more than 3-1 in the primary, Republicans by a margin of about 2-1 voted for de Leon. This was a real head-scratcher, as de Leon during the campaign often blasted Feinstein for her friendliness with some Republicans. De Leon is also the prime author of California’s “sanctuary state” law and his stances on everything from health care to climate change run diametrically counter to standard GOP positions.

Still, many Republicans came to detest Feinstein last fall, and decided to vote for anyone over her. De Leon became their only possible fallback, allowing him to improve greatly on his primary performance, only losing by an eventual margin of about 9 percent.

Their sentiments were expressed by the editor of one small Central Valley newspaper, who wrote in his pre-election endorsements column, where he also blasted Democrats for their “often stupid ideas”: “Vote for Kevin de Leon. Incumbent Dianne Feinstein embarrassed herself and California by carrying the water on the phony and vicious campaign against…Kavanaugh. Her days in the Senate should be brought to a close.”

That did not happen, but GOP voters became strange bedfellows for the Democratic left and gave Feinstein some anxious moments.

Had de Leon won, he would have voted consistently for six years against almost everything favored by the Republican voters who so avidly helped him out.

That’s not how former GOP Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his fellow Republican sidekick, ex-Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado, planned it when they helped create Top Two. Under their predicted scenario, the ultra-conservative voters who backed de Leon this fall were supposed to vote for the more moderate Feinstein.

If they were being rational, they would have done that. But they were governed by emotion, as many voters often are. So GOP-dominated counties like Shasta, Butte, Madera and Merced went big for de Leon.

If more monkey wrenches like this ever get tossed into Top Two, there’s a chance the same voters who opted into it will someday opt out.

-30-
Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,” is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, go to www.californiafocus.net

 

Poll: Split Role to Pass in 2020—Value of Property to Decline

While the election is 24 months away, a poll was released that should put every business and property owner in the State in shock.  The proposed “split-roll tax” which would increase property taxes on industrial and commercial property, hence LOWERING the value of the property, would pass with 58% of the vote.  The excuse is that we need more money for education. , specifically, the State colleges and universities.  In fact, while the higher property taxes will help k-12 and community colleges a little bit, this is really a way for cities and counties to finance the protection of the collapsing CalPERS—that is really where the money will go.

“How would Californians raise revenue for higher education? One possible source would be a “split roll” property tax, which would change Proposition 13 so that commercial property is taxed at current value while strict limits on residential property taxes remain in place. A potential 2020 initiative would direct the revenue to K–12 education and local government.

When Californians are asked how they would vote on a split roll property tax that directs some of the revenue to public higher education, 58 percent of adults and 56 percent of likely voters say they would vote yes. Democrats (77%) are much more likely than independents (57%) and far more likely than Republicans (27%) to favor this idea. In PPIC’s January statewide survey, which did not mention using the revenue for any specific purpose, 46 percent of likely voters were in favor of a split roll tax. In the April survey, 53 percent of likely voters favored a split roll system with some revenue directed to K–12 education.

Lower property values, mean more money for taxes—that translates into fewer employees, lower wages and salaries.  It also will affect the value of private homes as more people flee California.  If California is in a recession when the tax is implemented, it will explode the economic problems—thus providing less money to education, not more—since the most productive firms and families will leave the State.  Watch this carefully, Prepare a Plan B for your family and business.

jarvis

Many Ready for Change in Higher Education System

MAJORITIES FAVOR CSU, UC FUNDING GUARANTEE, “SPLIT ROLL” TAX THAT WOULD BENEFIT COLLEGES

Public Policy Institute of California,, 11/14/18

SAN FRANCISCO, November 14, 2018—Most Californians say public higher education should be a high priority for the next governor, and they are ready for a change in policies in the state’s college and university system.

These are among the key findings of a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), with funding from the College Futures Foundation.

Large majorities of Californians (74% adults, 73% likely voters) say the state’s public higher education system should be a high or very high priority for the new governor. Fewer than half (48% adults, 41% likely voters) say the system is generally going in the right direction.

Asked if the next governor should generally continue Governor Jerry Brown’s policies on public higher education or change to different policies, half (51% adults, 52% likely voters) prefer a change, while just 31 percent of adults and 34 percent of likely voters want to continue current policies. Democrats are divided between continuing Brown’s policies (44%) and changing to different ones (37%), while a majority of independents (58%) and an overwhelming majority of Republicans (84%) want to see a change.

Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, said: “Most Californians want the new governor to change course when it comes to public higher education, with fewer than half saying it is going in the right direction today.”

Asked to rate Brown’s handling of higher education, fewer than half of Californians (45% adults, 44% likely voters) approve. His overall approval rating is higher (50% adults, 53% likely voters). The legislature’s approval rating for handling higher education (42% adults, 35% likely voters) is also lower than its overall job approval rating (46% adults, 44% likely voters).

Affordability Seen as Big Problem

What are Californians’ concerns about the higher education system? Most (58%) say overall affordability is a big problem, and an additional 25 percent say it is somewhat of a problem. By contrast, just a quarter (26%) say enrollment capacity is a big problem and only 20 percent say the quality of education is a big problem. Across parties, majorities (65% Democrats, 63% Republicans, 60% independents) say affordability is a big problem.

In a state with one of the highest costs of living in the nation, the survey asks which is the bigger financial burden for students: tuition and fees or housing and living expenses. Residents are divided: 45 percent say tuition and fees, 34 percent say housing and living expenses, and 17 percent volunteer that the two are equally burdensome. Notably, the San Francisco Bay Area is the only region in which residents are more likely to name housing and living expenses as the bigger burden. Most Californians (59%) are very concerned that students who attend the state’s public colleges and universities are taking on too much debt, and most (61%) think there is not enough government funding for scholarships and grants for students who need financial help.

“Many Californians agree that college affordability is a big problem, with many pointing to housing and living expenses as well as tuition and fees,” Baldassare said.

Majority Favor Minimum State Spending Guarantee for CSU, UC

Majorities of adults (56%) and likely voters (57%) say the level of state funding for public higher education is not sufficient. Community colleges and K–12 public schools are guaranteed a minimal level of state funding under Proposition 98, passed in 1988. Most residents (63%) and likely voters (61%) say that it would be a good idea to do the same for the California State University and University of California systems. Across parties, a solid majority of Democrats (73%) and independents (65%) and a slight majority of Republicans (51%) say this would be a good idea.

“Citing a lack of state funding, many Californians are open to ideas about new funding sources and a state spending guarantee for the Cal State and UC systems,” Baldassare said.

Should additional state funding be tied to student outcomes, such as graduation rates? Majorities of adults (64%) and likely voters (57%) say yes. Most Democrats (68%) and independents (66%) share this view, while Republicans are more divided (44% favor, 48% oppose). Majorities across demographic groups and regions favor the idea.

When asked how colleges and universities should spend extra money if the state increases funding, 52 percent of adults and 55 percent of likely voters would prefer that it be used to increase resources to help current students obtain degrees. Fewer adults (38%) would prefer that it be used to increase enrollment capacity so that more students can attend.

Most Favor “Split Roll” Tax That Would Benefit Higher Education

How would Californians raise revenue for higher education? One possible source would be a “split roll” property tax, which would change Proposition 13 so that commercial property is taxed at current value while strict limits on residential property taxes remain in place. A potential 2020 initiative would direct the revenue to K–12 education and local government.

When Californians are asked how they would vote on a split roll property tax that directs some of the revenue to public higher education, 58 percent of adults and 56 percent of likely voters say they would vote yes. Democrats (77%) are much more likely than independents (57%) and far more likely than Republicans (27%) to favor this idea. In PPIC’s January statewide survey, which did not mention using the revenue for any specific purpose, 46 percent of likely voters were in favor of a split roll tax. In the April survey, 53 percent of likely voters favored a split roll system with some revenue directed to K–12 education.

Another possible revenue source is a state bond to fund higher education construction projects. Asked how they would vote on such a bond measure, 66 percent of adults and 57 percent of likely voters are in favor.

Three Branches of Higher Education System Get Good Grades

Solid majorities of adults rate the three segments of the public higher education system as good to excellent: 68 percent for the California Community Colleges, 66 percent for CSU, and 68 percent for UC. A quarter of adults rate the systems as not so good or poor. Majorities of those who attended a college in one of the systems give that system a positive rating.

Most Californians (57%) also say the state’s public colleges provide sufficient academic support and course planning for students to obtain a degree. African Americans (67%) are the most likely to express this view, followed by Latinos (64%), Asian Americans (59%), and whites (52%). Californians age 18 to 34 (65%) are more likely than older Californians (56% age 35 to 54, 51% age 55 or older) to say academic support is adequate.

When Californians are asked about who is responsible for a student’s success in higher education, 27 percent say the student is solely responsible and 61 percent say the university needs to help.

Californians Divided in Their Views on Equity

Do all qualified students have an opportunity to get a college education? Half of Californians (53%) say students from low-income families have less opportunity than others. A third of residents (34%) say low-income students have the same opportunities, and 12 percent say they have more opportunity. Majorities of African Americans (58%), Asian Americans (56%), and whites (55%) say low-income students have less opportunity, while fewer than half of Latinos (47%) say so. Majorities across income groups say low-income students have less opportunity.

When asked about equity for qualified students who are ethnic or racial minorities, Californians are divided. While 42 percent of residents say these students have about the same opportunity to get a college education, 40 percent say they have less opportunity and 15 percent say they have more.  Across racial/ethnic groups, a majority of African Americans (52%) believe qualified minorities have less opportunity to go to college. Pluralities of Latinos (48%) and Asian Americans (45%) say that opportunities are about equal. Whites are divided about whether qualified minority students have an equal opportunity to go to college (38% less opportunity, 38% about the same).

Most See Four-Year Degree as Very Important for Economic Success

A majority of adults (56%) say a four-year college degree is very important for economic and financial success in today’s economy. Latinos (69%) and Asian Americans (61%) are much more likely than African Americans (49%) and whites (46%) to hold this view. When Californians are asked if a college degree is necessary for a person to be successful in today’s work world or if there are other ways to succeed, they are divided (49% each). Three-quarters of adults (75%) think that the state’s higher education system is very important to the quality of life and economic vitality of the state over the next 20 years.

Most Favor Admission Priority for Local Students

Large majorities of adults (77%) say that the state’s public colleges and universities should give priority to local students from their regions of the state when making enrollment decisions. There is bipartisan agreement on this idea (81% Democrats, 80% Republicans, 74% independents). Majorities among racial/ethnic groups are in favor, as are majorities across regions, with support strongest among residents in Orange/San Diego (81%).

An overwhelming majority of Californians (80%) also favor the state making two years of community college tuition free for California students. Most residents (75%) also support the expansion of online certificate and degree programs in community colleges, a move Brown announced earlier this year.

About the Survey

This PPIC Statewide Survey was conducted with funding from the College Futures Foundation. Findings are based on a telephone survey of 1,703 California adult residents, including 1,193 interviewed on cell phones telephones and 510 interviewed on landline telephones. Interviews took place from October 27–November 5, 2018. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish, according to respondents’ preferences.

The sampling error, taking design effects from weighting into consideration, is ±3.5 percent for all adults, ±3.9 percent for the 1,399 registered voters, and ±4.4 percent for the 1,095 likely voters. The sampling error is ±6.2 percent for the 532 respondents who attended a California community college, ±8.5 percent for the 319 who attended a California State University school, and ±10.9 for the 205 who attended a University of California school. For more information on methodology, see page 21.