Be Prepared for the Boomer Death Tax

“OK, Boomer” is a mocking retort made by a member of the millennial generation to someone born between 1946 and 1964 – the Baby Boom generation. Like Boomers themselves, Millennials are dismissive of advice or direction from the generation that preceded them.

But both Boomers and Millennials – as well as the subsequent Gen X, Y & Z – had better be prepared for what is coming courtesy of the Biden administration – a massive new tax that will hit everyone who has wishes to pass on family wealth to their children and grandchildren. And this new death tax is just one proposal of many emanating from the White House that will inflict real economic harm on the nation.

Fresh from jamming through a $2 trillion Covid relief spending package – 90% of which had nothing to do with Covid relief – the Biden administration just announced another $2 trillion spending plan for “infrastructure.” Like the “American Rescue Plan,” the infrastructure bill called the “American Jobs Plan” is a grab bag of special interest spending that will financially reward those who backed the president. Only a fraction will be spent on the roads, highways and bridges that Americans actually use.

Beyond the sheer wasteful spending, the more critical concern is how Biden proposes to pay for it. His initial idea is to raise the corporate tax rate to 28% and impose a global minimum tax – an idea pushed by his Treasury Secretary, Janet Yellen. The folly in this was exposed by the Wall Street Journal: “Mr. Biden’s corporate tax increases will hit the middle class hard — in the value of their 401(k)s, the size of their pay packets, and what they pay for goods and services.” The Journal warned that even if the damage doesn’t show up immediately, “the corrosive impact will compound in the coming years.”

To read the entire column, please click here.

Fixing K-12 Education in California

Supporters of education reform in California have never had a bigger opportunity than right now. More parents than ever have now witnessed the selfish overreach of the teachers’ unions, at the same time as they’ve experienced, by the millions, creative educational solutions that bypass the traditional public school system. At the same time, an activist army has been formed in California that has already logged one major victory – collecting 2.1 million signatures to force Governor Newsom to defend his record in a special recall election – and they are looking for new battles to fight. When it comes to fixing education in California, here are some battles that need to be fought.

Universal Education Savings Accounts: The reform that would change everything are universal Education Savings Accounts, where the money follows individual students to whatever K-12 school their parents choose for them: traditional public school, charter school, parochial school, private school, or even charter/homeschool and private/homeschool hybrids.

Unchaining the torrent of money that currently pours into traditional public schools without competition and with minimal accountability would be an unprecedented breakthrough. Many of the details of how this could be done have been worked out in SB 1344, introduced by then State Senator Moorlach in 2018. It would allocate education funds mandated under Prop. 98 into education savings accounts, assigning an equal amount for every K-12 student in California. Currently that is about $12,500 per student per year.

A group in California already working on adapting SB 1344 to become an initiative constitutional amendment to be qualified for the November 2022 ballot is the California School Choice Foundation, ran by Pasadena attorney Michael Alexander. Potentially joining Alexander’s group in this effort are people who volunteered on the Newsom Recall campaign, forming the nucleus of what could become a grassroots movement of extraordinary power. But reformers should be aware of the other approaches to fixing public education in California.

Empower Charter Schools: One of the biggest alternative ways to start fixing education in California is to empower charter schools. This could be accomplished by broadening the list of entities that can authorize charter schools, permitting charters denied initial opening or renewal applications to appeal to any authorizing entity, taking away the cap on how many charter schools can be opened, and prohibiting denial of charter applications or renewals for reasons such as the alleged negative financial impact they may have on traditional public school budgets.

These are big ideas, but there’s much more.

Limit Union Negotiations to Pay and Benefits / Outlaw Strikes: Equally big and disruptive and beneficial to public education in California would be to roll back the prerogatives of the teachers’ unions. Currently, to quote a well informed, very indignant reformer who prefers anonymity at this time, “these unions can control what color chalk you are allowed to use on the blackboard.” More to the point, the teachers’ unions include in their bargaining negotiations things that ought to be up to the district superintendents and the elected school board, such as what textbooks to use. A reform that could go a long way towards fixing public education would be to simply rewrite the education code so unions negotiate over wages and benefits, and nothing more. At the same time, take away their right to strike. Defang the unions.

Change Rules Governing Tenure, Layoffs, and Dismissal: Another reform, certain to attract bitter opposition from the teachers’ unions but not so explicitly and overtly targeting them would be to simply change some of the work rules. The Vergara case of 2016, which unfortunately failed in the California Supreme Court on a technicality, provides a roadmap. Lengthen a teacher’s probationary period before acquiring tenure to at least five years. Replace seniority with merit as the criteria governing which teachers to retain and which to let go in layoffs and downsizings. And greatly streamline the ability to fire incompetent or negligent teachers, so principals can hold them accountable, rewarding good teachers and terminating bad teachers.

Empower Parents to Opt-Out of Politicized Instruction: Not least, a major reform would be to empower parents to remove students from classes that the parents feel violate their beliefs and principles. The new sex education classes, which many parents feel are both inappropriately graphic and tinged with an agenda, are an obvious example, but there are others. Politicized curricula that teaches students according to the controversial 1619 Project, or critical race theory, are other examples. If it were properly formulated, a parent empowerment initiative could be successful. It would allow parents to prevent the indoctrination of their children.

Many of the experts around the nation that have been contacted for education reform ideas are against wholesale, sweeping changes. But in almost every case, these are activists and lobbyists who worked with legislatures to enact reform. In those situations, the legislature may not have had a sufficient majority of staunch reform advocates to support dramatic changes. Incrementalism was the only possible way forward.

California is a different case. California’s Legislature will never enact reforms. Pro-charter and pro-school-choice advocates in California’s legislature are so outgunned that their mission is merely to reduce the speed at which the teachers’ union accomplishes their always expanding agenda.

For this reason, the only thing that should matter to education reformers in California is what voters think. California’s ballot initiative process is the one final safety valve preventing a complete takeover of the state government by special interests.

Proponents of universal education savings accounts face objections from battle weary reformers who’ve tried it before. Their argument goes something like this: If you try to take on the teachers’ union, they will spend you into the ground, you will lose badly, and nobody will want to try it again for another twenty years. Do a little bit at a time, log some small victories, and gradually move towards bigger reforms.

The problem with that argument ought to be obvious. The teachers’ union will spend you into the ground whether you’re going for a big reform or a small reform. The question, and the only question, should be what are voters willing to support. Universal education savings accounts help everybody. Incremental reforms do not help everybody. By definition, broader reforms ought to have broader appeal.

The opportunity posed by the shameful behavior of the teachers’ unions during the pandemic, combined with the presence for the first time of powerful and effective statewide grassroots groups, can still be lost. Proponents should make something very clear: We are going to put this on the ballot in 2022, and if we fail, we’re going to put it on the ballot again in 2024, and again if necessary in 2026 and so on. And the way to accomplish this is to budget accordingly.

With the right combination of grassroots support and state-of-the-art outreach, the cost of getting an initiative on the ballot has come down for the first time in years. To qualify a statewide initiative, plan on spending $5 million in 2022, then again in 2024, and again in 2026. Separate the organizational and financial effort to qualify from the resulting independently ran campaigns that will spring up in support, because those campaigns cannot be controlled. Plan on a six year effort. Drain the unions dry. By 2026, if not sooner, they’ll be broke.

For an expenditure of $15 million over six years, the unions will spend at least $150 million. That alone makes this a compelling case. With an aggressive, creative, honest campaign that doesn’t pussyfoot around these unions, however, a universal education savings account measure will be approved by voters, meaning the teachers’ union will not only be financially broken, but their monopoly on our children’s futures will also be broken.

This article was originally published by the California Globe.

Newsom’s Not-So-Full California Reopening

After suggestions that Newsom is planning to add a less-restrictive green tier to California’s Blueprint for a Safer Economy, Governor Gavin Newsom announced that, assuming the current COVID trajectory in California remains, the tiered system that has been in place since August will be eliminated entirely. According to Governor Newsom, it will be “business as usual” again.

Every Californian has been waiting for this day to come. While we now have June 15 circled on our calendars, Newsom’s announcement has led to more questions than answers.

One might assume a fully reopened, tier-free economy means Californians can finally throw away their masks. But Governor Newsom said in his press conference that the mask mandate will remain in effect after the reopening. The California Department of Public Health also stated that even when the state goes “beyond the Blueprint,” workplaces would still need to “promote policies that reduce risk and mask wearing in indoor and other high-risk settings as well as remote work when possible without impacting business operations.” These lingering restrictions don’t exactly scream “Back to normal!”

Another presumption with Newsom’s announcement is that schools would reopen in-person, five full days a week. This would be incorrect. According to the California Department of Public Health, “Schools and institutions of higher education should conduct full-time, in-person instruction, in compliance with Cal/OSHA emergency temporary standards and public health guidelines” (my emphasis added). “Should” is not the same thing as “mandated.” The Governor reinforced that message in his address on Tuesday that fully reopening schools is “an expectation but not a requirement.”

The slated reopening date of June 15 also raises questions. California’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Dr. Mark Ghaly, explained the timing for the June 15 reopening. This is based on the date everyone ages 16 and older qualifies to be vaccinated: April 15. It can take two weeks to wait for an initial dose, four weeks between first and second doses, and two weeks for the second dose to take effect for a total of eight weeks. 

The reasoning makes sense if COVID-19 affected all groups the same and the first dose does not offer any immediate protection. But, it has been well-documented that COVID-19 affects elderly people and those with pre-existing conditions far more than it does healthy teenagers. At least 70% of elderly Americans have already received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine in the United States. Delaying the reopening until those least-susceptible to catching COVID have received both doses is unnecessary. Plus, two weeks after the initial dose of the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, those vaccinated will already have up to 80% protection.

Importantly, California’s current case rate is 22.5 times less than it was during the winter wave peak, and is currently one the lowest in the nation. Yet, Newsom’s reopening is not slated to occur until summer. 

Meanwhile, states across the country have created their own reopening plans. 

Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio said that once cases drop below 50 per 100,000 people for two weeks, all public health orders will be lifted. This equates to about 3.6 new cases per day per 100,000 people. To put this in perspective, many counties in California have already reached this benchmark (although not the state as a whole just yet).

Another option is the approach by Governor Greg Abbott. On March 10, he reopened all of Texas and eliminated the mask mandate. Texas’ COVID numbers have been trending down since the reopening.  

While each plan has its pros and cons, both of these plans have concrete action items and include a full reopening.

While there is cause for celebration as more people are getting vaccinated and the end of  public health restrictions is in sight, June 15 may not be the “Independence Day” we are hoping for.

Brandon Ristoff is a policy analyst for the California Policy Center.

This article was originally published by the California Policy Center.

Biden Wants To ‘Make America California’

I was surprised to read [in the Los Angeles Times] that the Biden administration’s “role model for America” is…California! He wants to “Make America California.”

That’s a terrible idea.

Californians now rush to move out of California.

Some hopeful folks still move there, but so many more leave that California now loses more than 10,000 citizens every month. In fact, the state will soon lose a congressional seat.

Why do Californians leave? “Exorbitant tax rates, high crime rates, the failing public school systems, the exorbitant cost of living,” says reporter Kristen Tate in my new video.

So many Californians move away that there’s now even a shortage of U-Hauls. Renting one to go from Los Angeles to Houston costs four times as much as it does to go from Houston to LA.

“People are just emptying out!” says Tate.

But this seems crazy. California has great weather and all kinds of natural advantages.

The state’s politicians drive people away with bad policies.

Asked by Stossel TV whether it’s a bad idea for President Joe Biden to “make the U.S. more like California,” Governor Gavin Newsom’s office replied with a statement saying, “Before the COVID pandemic, California saw job growth and record low unemployment.”

Wow. Really?

Oh, it was a record for California. Before the pandemic, the state’s unemployment was 12th worst in America. Now, it’s 3rd worst.

The statement continues, “We remain the fifth largest economy in the world…home to 20 of Fortune’s fastest growing companies.”

But that only means California was hospitable to business years ago. Now Oracle, Tesla, and many other companies are moving operations to other states.

A big reason is California’s onerous regulations. They make it hard to create anything new. It’s also a reason housing costs so much.

California passed a law raising its minimum wage from $13 to $15 an hour. That’s one reason many Californians can’t find any legal work.

A good thing about America having 50 states is that when states fail, we can learn from their mistakes. People defeated by California’s rules move to Nevada or Texas. But if the federal government adopts California’s rules, where can we move?

The Congressional Budget Office says a national $15 minimum wage will help some people, but it will cost 1.4 million jobs.

Yet, Biden wants the higher minimum.

Biden’s plan for America also includes a new version of Cash for Clunkers, the absurd program that once paid people to junk old cars. California has its own version, which the state claims helps reduce emissions.

“But most of the cars that were turned in were not even actively registered,” says Tate. “It means they probably were just going to be scrapped anyway! These programs are failures…but they make environmentalists feel good.”

Like California’s “clean energy” rules. How long until all American motorists pay the $4 per gallon Californians pay? Or the $7 people pay in Norway and Denmark?

Biden also picked lots of Californians for his administration.

When Vice President Kamala Harris was San Francisco’s district attorney, she oversaw 1,900 convictions for pot offenses. Yet, she’s since joked about her own marijuana use.  When the Biden administration fired staffers for using marijuana in the past, Harris was spared.

“Unfortunately, there’s been a trend in the Biden administration of giving jobs to people who might check [race and gender] boxes,” says Tate. “But they have horrendous track records.”

Biden made Alejandro Mayorkas America’s new secretary of Homeland Security even though he was cited by the inspector general for pressuring his staff to approve visas for politically powerful Democrats.

“In government, you always fail up,” complains Tate.

The Los Angeles Times wrote that Biden wouldn’t nominate California Labor Secretary Julie Su because “rampant levels of fraud scuttled [her] prospects.” Biden then made her deputy secretary of labor.

“If we make America California,” concludes Tate, “we are all going to be paying for it.”

At least Californians can move to other states.

But I don’t want to leave America.

This article was originally published by

Newsom’s Vow to Reopen California is a High-Stakes Political Gamble

Photo by Richard Balog on Unsplash

Gov. Gavin Newsom is running two races this spring: The first is to clobber the coronavirus pandemic that has killed nearly 60,000 Californians and devastated businesses and schools with unprecedented restrictions. The second is to keep his job, which could be threatened by a recall election later this year. 

The two paths intersected today as Newsom announced plans to fully reopen California businesses on June 15 — if hospitalization rates remain low and the state has enough vaccines to inoculate all Californians who want a shot. 

“We’re seeing death rates… go down. We’re seeing case rates stabilize. We have the lowest case rates in the United States of America,” Newsom said during a press conference in San Francisco. “On June 15, all things being equal, if we continue that good work… we’ll be opening up this economy (for) business as usual.” 

At first blush, the political benefit seems obvious: The campaign attempting to throw Newsom out of office is fueled, in part, by anger over his decisions to close businesses, schools and churches amid the pandemic. His announcement that the state is planning to fully reopen could quell frustration and take some wind out of the recall campaign’s sails. The June 15 reopening happens to fall during a period when voters can remove their names from the recall petitions if they changed their minds.

But it’s not all upside. Newsom’s bold pronouncement about what he’ll do two months down the line — while infections are rising in other parts of the country, highly contagious coronavirus variants are spreading and the state says only 23% of Californians are fully vaccinated — also comes with a dose of political danger. 

“It’s a really risky decision, but with a high percentage of success,” said Fernando Guerra, a political science professor at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles.

“The risk is that the fourth wave may hit California, he’s going to have to backtrack, reinstitute some of the restrictions, and then it will reinforce the whole rationale for the recall.”

The effort to oust the Democratic governor began before the year-long pandemic upended life in California. It was driven by conservative activists who oppose Newsom’s progressive stances on immigration, gun control and criminal justice. But the pandemic gave their campaign a massive shot of momentum, as many Californians got fed up with the state’s constantly shifting restrictions — and a judge ruled that recall supporters could have more time to gather signatures because of last year’s stay-at-home order. 

So the course of the pandemic and the course of the recall have become intertwined, making it impossible to separate whether Newsom’s decisions about one are driven by the other. A poll last week found that 56% of Californians would vote against the recall — enough for Newsom to keep his job. But polls capture the mood at a specific moment in time and public opinion could change depending on how the state recovers from the pandemic. 

“You cannot help but see every decision that is made in the sense of the recall,” Guerra said. “The pandemic determines the fact that we have the recall, and how the recall is going to play out.”

Though Newsom has been projecting optimism about the end of the pandemic for several weeks, today’s announcement was a big move that seemed to go beyond what he previously forecast. Last month, Newsom said he’d speed up business reopenings — but didn’t promise a full-scale reopening — after 4 million vaccine doses had been administered in the state’s hardest-hit communities. The state hit that number today, he said, allowing him to set the June 15 goal.  

Newsom said he’s monitoring the spread of variants, and that his decision to reopen is based on California’s low case rates and an expectation of sufficient supply of vaccines. A prominent epidemiologist said Newsom’s plan is prudent, and the president of the California Chamber of Commerce said it “is especially welcome news as we enter California’s peak tourism and recreation season.”

But supporters of the recall campaign cast it as a purely political move that still falls short of what Californians need.

“Gavin Newsom is making a political football out of reopening California; don’t be surprised when he moves the goalposts,” tweeted John Cox, the Republican businessman who lost to Newsom in 2018 and is running against him if the recall qualifies for the ballot. 

Another GOP challenger, former San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, said in a statement that “Newsom has shown that he’s only motivated by his own political survival, not doing what’s best for Californians.” 

“If he truly wanted to help families across this state, he would reopen all public schools for in-person learning now.”

Even with the low rates of infection, California lags the rest of the nation in the portion of kids who attend school in-person. And while many schools in the state have begun to reopen this spring, they’re generally on hybrid schedules that only allow kids on campus for a few hours a week — making it difficult for many parents to work. 

“The economy cannot reopen without schools fully and safely reopening as well, otherwise working parents, especially working mothers, will be left behind,” said a statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, which represents the state’s largest companies.

“The schools must be a full partner in creating an equitable recovery and reopening, allowing all working families the opportunity to get back to work.”

Newsom said it’s his “expectation” that schools will fully reopen after June 15 and vowed that there will be “no barrier to having our kids back in in-person instruction.” But he did not commit to requiring that schools offer normal full-time schedules this fall — highlighting another political liability if the recall campaign is in full swing during back-to-school season and families are still scrambling to accommodate part-time class schedules and Zoom lessons from home. 

CalMatters reporter Ben Christopher contributed to this story.

This article was originally published by

Gov. Newsom Has a Problem With No-Bid Contracts

This is a tale of two Governors’ disparate treatment by media.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has a problem with no-bid contracts to favored donors, yet he’s barely criticized for it in the media.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis actually used a smart delivery system to get more vaccines to his states’ residents, and was accused by 60 Minutes of favoring a big donor.

Here are several examples of Gov. Newsom’s contracts:

  • He awarded a no-bid contract worth over $221 million this year alone for UnitedHealth subsidiary OptumServe to help with vaccine delivery.
  • Another no-bid agreement was extended by $61 million.
  • awarded a $176 million no-bid contract for a UnitedHealth subsidiary to deliver vaccines.
  • The governor awarded Blue Shield a $15 million contract as the state’s third-party administrator for vaccine distribution.
  • Last year, the Newsom administration awarded a no-bid $1 billion deal with Chinese company BYD for hundreds of millions of N95 and surgical masks.

These contracts were unnecessary as the state already has an amazing vaccine delivery system in place using retail pharmacies, the way flu vaccines are already delivered annually. It would not have cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars to do this.

Yet, this is exactly what DeSantis did, and 60 Minutes attempted to skewer him for it. But they didn’t have the story they thought they did, because they deceptively edited video of the Florida Governor to make him look guilty.

Click here to read the full article from the California Globe.

Katy Grimes, the Editor of the California Globe, is a long-time Investigative Journalist covering the California State Capitol, and the co-author of California’s War Against Donald Trump: Who Wins? Who Loses?

Solving California’s Urban Water Scarcity

A study by the Public Policy Institute of California in 2019 found that per capita urban water use in the state has dropped consistently over the years, from 231 gallons per day in 1990 to 180 gallons per day in 2010, then dropping to 146 gallons per day during the drought in 2015. This clearly bodes well for addressing the next drought, which could be on the way, but doesn’t address the challenges posed by suburban households with yards, which tend to use far more water than average.

In 2014, as Californians coped with the last severe drought, the Pacific Institute compiled data from the water districts serving urban consumers across the state in order to report per capita water use by region. The findings indicated that suburban households in the drier parts of the state were consuming water a per capita rate nearly three times the average; well over an acre foot per year per household.

Confronting this challenge addresses one of the key arguments of the anti-suburb movement: If every one of California’s 13 million households consumed an acre foot of water per year, residential water consumption in the state would be 13 million acre feet per year instead of the current 5 million acre feet per year.

There are many answers to this challenge, but exploring these answers, and the attendant policy solutions, should not merely rest on draconian restrictions on water use combined with a war on new suburban development. The other solution is to invest in infrastructure that guarantees water abundance even in drought years.

The advantages of this approach ought to be obvious: California is a so-called first world economy, with a standard of living that presumably should not submit to rationing. Californians should not have to worry about punitive fines if they take showers that last long enough to properly rinse the soap out of their hair. They should not have to wash their clothes in on-off high tech washers that take hours to complete a cycle and do a lousy job. They should be able to have a lawn if that is an amenity they value and are willing to pay a reasonable price to keep watered.

California’s suburbanites have a right to have these expectations. The economic cost to fulfill these expectations is manageable, as is the environmental impact. And by investing in infrastructure that creates water abundance in the state, a deep resilience is created that guarantees a secure water supply even during mega-droughts, or during civil emergencies where parts of the infrastructure are disrupted.

The principle that should govern suburban water use can be simple: They can use all the water they want if they’re willing to pay for it. Theoretically, there’s no reason why a suburban water consumer can’t bring their averages down that of an apartment dweller: Stop all outdoor watering and let the plants all die, install low flow, water sipping appliances inside the house, and voila, you’re down to the magic 55 gallons per day per person or less. But you’re also creating a dust bowl, and living a diminished, micromanaged life. So how much should it cost a household, if they want to consume an acre foot of water per year?

The most expensive but inexhaustible source of fresh water is via desalination. The price to the consumer for desalinated water in California today is about one cent per gallon. That is on the high side, since developers of desalination plants have to withstand decades of regulatory delays and spend hundreds of millions on permits, fees, and litigation. Removing those barriers, along with tapping into new modular designs for desalination plants that do not require as much custom engineering, ought to be able to cut those costs in half.

As it is, however, at a penny per gallon, it would cost a household $3,258 per year, or $271 per month, to consume an acre foot of desalinated water per year. That should be the benchmark.

Keeping this price in mind has useful implications. It means that if local water districts are contemplating punitive rates for people who exceed their consumption targets, those rates should not exceed $.01 per gallon. It means that coastal water districts that are already billing their customers at a rate in excess of $.01 per gallon ought to be subjected to a withering audit of their operations. Desalination is frequently derided as a ridiculously expensive way to produce fresh water. Fine. If that’s true, than start charging people less for water sourced by other means. And other means are plentiful.

For example, treated wastewater in Los Angeles County is still discharged into the Pacific Ocean at the astonishing volume of over 1.0 million acre feet per year. All of this water was imported via aqueducts, primarily from the Sacramento River and the Owens Valley. As Orange County has demonstrated, as they are within a few years of recycling 100 percent of their wastewater to potable quality, creating drinkable water from wastewater can be done for roughly half the current price of desalination.

At the same time, storm runoff in the Los Angeles Basin requires treatment as well. Rain in Southern California is infrequent but often torrential when it does hit, washing toxins off impermeable surfaces and pouring them into the storm drains. All of this water should also be treated, with some of it reused and the rest discharged into the watersheds with the toxins removed.

All of this costs billions of dollars. But by using the cost of desalinated water as a benchmark, it is clear that the ratepaying consumer can bear this cost. To the extent rates might go too high, general obligation bonds can pick up the slack. And what about developing less expensive sources of fresh water?

Why aren’t California’s water agencies investing more aggressively in runoff capture and underground storage, so that when the atmospheric rivers hit California – even in drought years there are a few of these – and dump far more water onto the state than the ecosystems require, millions of acre feet can be captured and stored for urban and agricultural use? Why weren’t the delta pumps running at full capacity back in January during what may have been the only big storms of 2021, sending water south to be stored?

The discussion of water policy as Californians face the possibility of another drought revolves around core issues, one of which is a huge political question: Are suburbs sustainable? The answer to this should be an emphatic yes. Families should be able to move to new, affordable suburbs. But to make this possible again, California must continue to invest in enabling infrastructure. Creating water abundance should be at the top of the list.

This article originally appeared on the website of the California Globe.

Are Property Rights Dead In California?

According to one San Francisco supervisor, there are tens of thousands of vacant housing units in the city. “How do we activate them?” he asks.

It’s a good question, with an answer that’s likely to unsettle the dwindling number in California who still respect property rights.

Dean Preston, the first Democratic Socialist to be elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in more than 40 years, has asked his colleagues to hold committee hearings on vacancies in May, “and for the budget analyst to issue a report on the issue,” the San Francisco Examiner reports.

It’s not hard to correctly guess what Preston is thinking. The Examiner said that in announcing his request for hearings, he mentioned Vancouver had “passed an ‘empty-homes tax’ on units not occupied for a majority of the year.” That ordinance says “properties deemed empty will be subject to a tax of 1.25% of the property’s 2020 assessed taxable value.” It will increase to 3% this year. The objective is to restrict owners’ choices. Under a vacancy tax – a concept that is not unfamiliar to San Francisco’s supervisors – property owners can either rent out their homes, or pay what is ostensibly a fine.

In other words, if owners utilize their property in ways that displease the government, they will be punished.

Don’t mistake Preston’s flirtation with an empty-homes tax for a desperate effort to solve San Francisco’s housing crisis. It’s simply part of an extremist agenda. On the same day he called for hearings, Preston said “we will continue to press forward with creative, anti-capitalist solutions to make housing a human right. Social housing is a key part of that strategy.”

Should supervisors eventually hold hearings, San Francisco homeowners should hope the sessions aren’t merely a cover for ramming through a tax they already plan to enact. Not only would the ordinance violate property rights, as policy, it simply won’t work. Vancouver’s experience is instructive.

First, Vancouver found only about a 10th of the number of empty homes it expected to tax could be classified as taxable properties. Second, rent did not become more affordable. In 2018, the year after the empty-homes tax was first levied, advertised single-bed rental prices increased 6.5%.

Across the Bay, Oakland has set the progressive bar for San Francisco. A vacancy tax that includes residences, ground-floor commercial units, and open lots, approved by voters (Measure W), and on the books since 2019, was first imposed in Oakland for the 2020-2021 tax year. Though it’s too soon to judge its impact, it wouldn’t at all be premature to point out there’s no reason to think the tax will work better in Oakland than it has in Vancouver.

Meanwhile, the “new Democrat-dominated” (8-1) San Diego City Council is “proposing several bold ideas to tackle the city’s affordable housing crisis,” one of them a vacancy tax, the Union-Tribune reports. Council members “say solving the housing crisis has become more important with the city’s greater focus on social equity.”

The Los Angeles City Council is also following the script. It initially wanted to place a vacancy tax based on Oakland’s model on the November 2020 ballot, but last year decided to wait until 2022 before taking it to the voters. It’s not unthinkable that the Los Angeles measure will pass, and the San Diego City Council will approve a vacancy tax with only a single dissenting vote. “Social equity” is the currency of the day in North America’s biggest cities while property rights are increasingly being regarded as an anachronism.

For instance in Vancouver, “despite the fact that the (empty-homes tax) represents a severe encroachment on property rights, the push back from homeowners in ‘the world’s sixth most livable city’ seems to be slim to none,” say the barristers of the Pazder Law Corporation, a firm based in British Columbia.

In a question that should also be asked south of the border, Pazder wants to know:“Why should any Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada who lawfully owns a property be told by the government that they can’t leave it vacant?”

Apparently, there’s little resistance because “Canadians have been conditioned to automatic, knee jerk acceptance of all new taxes – it’s in their DNA.”

Yeah, that sounds like many of today’s Californians.

Kerry Jackson is a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

This article was originally published by the Pacific Research Institute.

Fighting, and Winning, School Choice in California

Photo by Element5 Digital on Unsplash

There is going to be a school choice initiative on the state ballot in November 2022.

While this is not an absolute certainty, the grassroots support for school choice is strong, and the infrastructure necessary to nurture a grassroots effort is now in place. The RecallGavin2020 campaign has proven the model, and fed up parents from Chula Vista to Crescent City are ready to strike.

What is far from certain however is the form a school choice measure will take, or the consequences of having it on the ballot. Evaluating these consequences in advance should guide school choice advocates as they consider what sort of product to hand over to the troops for signature gathering.

Broadly speaking, there are two avenues that a school choice initiative can take. Empowering charter schools, or creating education savings accounts, or ESAs. The California School Choice Foundation is already actively researching an ESA ballot initiative. These two options might be loosely summarized as follows:


1 – Charter schools can be approved by the following entities: The state board of education, any county board of education, any school district school board, any mayor, and any public or private accredited university.

2 – There will be no cap established by the state or any public agency on the number of charter schools, or the number of charter school students.

3 – Renewal applications for charter schools that are denied by school districts shall have the right to appeal to any authorizing entity.

4 – No charter school application or renewal shall be denied on the basis of the financial impact it will have on the school district in which it is located.


1 – An Education Savings Account (ESA) would be created for every K-12 student in California.

2 – These accounts would be credited annually with each student’s pro rata share of Prop. 98 funds (40% of the California General fund). This amounts to approximately $10,000 per student per year.

3 – The parents of K-12 students will be able to direct that money to a participating school whether it’s a public, charter, or accredited private or parochial school.

4 – The money, if unspent, would accumulate to be used for college, vocational, or any other accredited educational expense.

A big argument in favor of the charter school option is that the largely Democratic electorate in California is probably more inclined to favor charter schools over education savings accounts. But the danger of a charter school option is that it will attract a retaliatory, competing initiative courtesy of the teachers’ unions, one designed to kill off charter schools.

The appeal of the education savings accounts option is its scope. Allowing public education funds to follow the student to the school chosen for them by their parents means that private schools, religious schools, and all manner of new and innovative pod and micro schools would also benefit, along with charters and traditional public schools. But getting an initiative like this onto the ballot, and winning in November, are very different ballgames.

California’s electorate includes millions of voters who are conservatives, members of religious communities, and nonpartisan education reformers from a variety of communities. All of them will vote for universal education savings accounts. But while these millions are strong supporters of school choice, likely able to muster the grassroots support to qualify an initiative for the ballot and fight tenaciously for its passage, at this time they are outnumbered by voters who have been convinced over the years that traditional public schools must be protected. California’s political landscape is littered with the corpses of failed attempts to bring wholesale reform to public education.

The most recent attempt to convince voters to further school choice options in California was back in 2000 with Prop. 38, “School Vouchers,” which was rejected by voters 70.6 percent to 29.4 percent. The initiative, which would have granted state funded $4,000 vouchers per K-12 student, to be used by the parents for attendance at any private school including religious schools, was actually projected to save taxpayers money, because it would have enabled many parents to pull their children out of the much more expensive public schools.

How the teachers’ unions successfully fought Prop. 38 helps explain why California’s electorate has been soured to the concept of school vouchers. The unions relied on two powerful messages: “Billionaires are trying to destroy public schools so they can make profit with private schools,” and “rich people are collecting payments they don’t need, taking funds away from schools in low income communities.”

Both of these messages rest on fraudulent premises. The problem however is the rebuttals to these messages require more than the 40 words that fit into a 30 second television spot.

For example, demonizing billionaires is good sport for the unions, whenever it isn’t their billionaires. How billionaires use their money for advocacy is what matters, not their status as billionaires. As for “profit,” the presence of for-profit education subcontractors exists everywhere. The biggest financial ecosystem for profiteering in California’s education universe surrounds the public schools, where for-profit venders ranging from construction firms to purveyors of textbooks, computers, and school lunches are all making a killing. But these are nuanced, defensive arguments, lacking both the brevity and the clarity of the union salvo.

The argument that ESAs provide money to people who don’t need it is also a tough argument to rebut, even though it also rests on fraudulent foundations. The great appeal of universal ESAs is that everyone benefits. Low income families have the ability to bypass the failed public school monopoly and enroll in a parochial school, or a charter school, or any number of new and innovative options. Middle class families with children already enrolled in private schools would no longer struggle desperately to pay both property taxes and private school tuition. So what if wealthy families get money they don’t need? Put a cap on eligibility if that’s really an issue.

Imagine the innovations a universal program of ESAs would enable. It would accelerate the development of hybrid schools, blending in-person and remote instruction. Imagine a charter or private school that relied primarily on providing virtual instruction, which would reduce their overhead cost, but then used the money saved to pay for the big screens and high speed internet that low income families would otherwise find unaffordable. Imagine a charter or private school operator sending specialized instructors that would work with homeschoolers or micro/pod schools, instructing a dozen students at a time in a specific subject, rotating between several venues.

These sorts of innovations, already stimulated by the pandemic, combined with the disgraceful performance of the teachers’ unions during the pandemic, may have influenced California’s electorate to feel more favorable towards universal ESAs than they might have felt twenty years ago, or, for that matter, two years ago.

No attempt to put a school choice initiative onto California’s state ballot in November 2020 can fail to anticipate the counterstrikes by the teachers’ unions. Most political observers, unequivocally, consider them to be the most powerful political special interest in the state.

California’s charter schools, enrolling about ten percent of all K-12 students in California, didn’t emerge by accident. These schools were established despite opposition from the teachers’ unions, but there were other education reform offensives occurring at the same time, preventing the unions from focusing exclusively on crushing the charter school movement. Across the state, education reformers introduced litigation, legislation, and local initiatives that drew union fire. Also benefitting the growth of charter schools in California was the presence of powerful charter school advocates within the ranks of billionaire Democrats. Many of those donors have moved on to new causes: homeless, criminal justice, and climate change.

Finding the money to fight for school choice in California isn’t impossible, but the donors that funded previous efforts either need to refocus on education reform, or new donors have to be found. There are an estimated 165 billionaires in California, along with probably thousands of individuals with a net worth in excess of $100 million. These people can spend a million bucks the way ordinary people buy a cup of coffee. Where are they?

Money isn’t enough, however, as Republicrat Meg Whitman proved in her disastrous, and very costly campaign for Governor in 2010. To create favorable terrain for a school choice ballot initiative, brutal communication strategies will make the best use of funds. “Why did the unions let children commit suicide because they wouldn’t open classrooms?” “Why does the CTA defend pedophiles?”

As reform campaigns ought to have learned by now, policy proposals that amount to a frontal assault on public sector union power need to be accompanied by rhetoric that is equally antagonistic. These unions demonize their opponents, yet their opponents are unwilling to reciprocate.

Experienced observers urge an incremental policy approach. Limit ESAs to low income families, or learning disabled children. Just accomplishing that would be a shot heard across the nation. The experts also recommend parallel fights to split union forces. Why isn’t another Vergara case being attempted? Why not introduce legislation, or litigation, to address the need for more transparency and accountability in public education?

The split among Democrats on education reform is mirrored in the State Legislature. Many education reformers are biding their time, cognizant of the 12 year term limits coming taking effect starting in 2024, when 24 incumbents will be termed out of the State Assembly, with most of the rest termed out in 2026 and 2028. Their goal is to get pro-reform Democrats into those seats. But between now and then, a lot can happen.

This article originally appeared in the California Globe.

The Great California Exodus

Of all the angles one could take to critique the present state of leadership in California, perhaps none is as simple and objective as the basic fact of exodus.

Fiscal considerations are subject to idiosyncratic catalysts that skew the data for periods of time (to either the positive or the negative). Unfunded pension liabilities speak to a future problem to result from present malfeasance, but they still allow people to conclude, “Well, maybe that works out better in the future than it sounds now.” (It won’t.) The widening economic divide is felt to be a problem only by those on the losing side of it. A lack of cultural cohesion is not just “not a problem” for many on the left, but an explicit aim. California is a mess economically, fiscally, socially, educationally, and culturally, but in each category there exist sufficient can-kicking options, or at least prima facie “spin” opportunities, to soften the realities of what is taking place in the Golden State. But there is one basic, objective reality that is impossible to spin away — people are leaving in droves.

I suppose that some states or pockets of the country in various periods, likely cyclical ones, could be susceptible to mass exodus. Weather conditions, quality of life, scenic options, pace, energy, educational opportunities, job-market dynamics — there are always reasons that could lead one to leave a certain place for another. But every one of those issues was a magnet to California decade upon decade — not a deterrent to coming or staying. Come spend a day with me in Newport Beach sometime and tell me that the weather is the reason people are leaving this state. You can rest assured that no part of Cali­fornia will receive a failing grade for its weather.

To leave a spot often branded as paradise for its warm, sunny, and consistent weather, there has to be a catalyst. Dreamers long flooded into California  because of an entrepreneurial culture that was real and palpable. From Holly­wood to Silicon Valley, from the Central Valley to San Diego, from downtown Los Angeles to the Inland Empire, whether in entertainment, technology, agriculture, sciences, big business, or small business, there was a dream associated with being in California. It was aspirational. It was a spot of infinite opportunity that also had the Pacific Ocean and 70-degree weather. It was no accident that California grew as it did, and no accident that such profoundly important businesses grew here, came here, were founded here, and flourished here.

But, alas, it has been no accident, either, that all of this has wrenchingly reversed. The weather and the dreams have not changed. But the tax rates, the regulations, and the cultural climate have. And over two decades marked by a highly conscious policy shift, the Left has helped to reverse the New Year’s Day dynamic of folks around the country watching the Rose Bowl on ABC, wondering why they are shoveling snow off their driveways when those lucky SOBs in Pasadena are bathing in sunshine with a view of the San Gabriel Mountains. It takes a lot of work to reverse a force like that, but the work was done, and that force has been reversed.

There is no one factor that has provoked the exodus. In fact, nearly every person I have ever talked to who has left the state was willing to swallow one of the major disadvantages of life there. Perhaps they didn’t like the heavy tax burden but were willing to bear it in exchange for the various advantages that life there gave them. The inexorable increase in cost of living was a bear but acceptable up to a point. The regulatory burdens were unwarranted but tolerable if one could just manage to do whatever it was one aspired to do. …

Click here to read the full article from the National Review.