Posted on

Responsible Congressmen ?

Earlier this month my local liberal paper had an editorial that I agreed with. Now one might not think that that is a big deal, but keep in mind that I rarely agree with what they have to say. The topic of the editorial was the federal debt and in their words “disaster looms unless responsible Americans step up.” (The emphasis is mine.)
What made them take this conservative stand? It was because of what Howard Schultz said. For those of you who don’t know Mr. Schultz, he is the very liberal retiring Starbuck’s executive who is apparently considering running for president in 2020. He said, “The greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over . . . America and future generations.”
In case any of you are not familiar with our increasing federal debt problem, let me relate some facts from this editorial:
The Congressional Budget Office predicts that an annual budget deficit of approximately $1trillion will be the new norm by 2020, and this will lead to a National debt of $33 trillion in a decade. The dollars just needed to service the debt will increase from $263 billion in 2017 to $1.05 trillion in 2028, and this will dwarf the annual military spending or the annual Medicare budget.
In other words we are talking bucoo bucks here, and the liberal editorial staff warns that “unless responsible Americans step up, disaster looms!”
Is there a way to change this runaway freight train that is headed for this upcoming big time disaster? Realistically there are only a few possible ways to alter the present projected course of the debt. First, raise taxes. Second, cut spending especially in reference to social programs. Or third, a combination of the two. (There are actually two other possible ways to derail this locomotive – one is to increase the amount of tax collected by reving up the economy – the “Trump solution.” And the other is to close your eyes and hope – this appears to be the Democrat’s way of dealing with this mess.)
I agree with the statement, “unless responsible Americans step up, disaster looms!”
Responsible Americans! I hope that no one expects to find this rare commodity in Congress, as a “responsible congressman” is as close to an oxymoron that one can get.  For the most part those in Congress are most concerned with getting re-elected, and this is done by playing to their base. Can anyone imagine a conservative congressman running for re-election by advocating raising taxes? Likewise can anyone envision a liberal congressman running for re-election on a platform of cutting spending, vis-a-vis stopping the freebies? The answer to both is, “No!”
Is there a solution? . . .  Yes, I have one!
My solution involves a pretty basic idea:
If we want Congress to act responsibly, stop making them run for re-election all the time, and this means “term limits.” One six year term for a U.S. Senator. Two two-year terms for a someone in the House of Representatives. If they were not always worried about placating their base, maybe there is a chance that they would act like responsible Americans!
Posted on

Water, Part III

Next I am going to focus on how California is doing in regards to the capturing and the holding on to the water that nature provides. A lot of the following information was gleaned from a recent Wall Street Journal editorial, and so it should be very up to date.
In 2014 California voters approved a $7.5 billion bond to expand water storage and improve flood control. That’s good news, right? Well it should be except that it is the California Water Commission controls the pursestrings. In the four years since the bond measure passed, this commission has tried to scuttle 11 water-storage projects like the Sites Reservoir in NorCal and the Temperance Flats Reservoir in the Fresno area. Apparently the Commission scored both of these projects low on “public benefit,” and “public benefit” is required by law for approval.  The hooker here is that the Commission has apparently formulated its own narrow definition that includes the ecosystem, water quality, emergency response, and recreation.
A glaring omission from this list is what “public benefit” should actually mean: Preserving the California lifestyle by providing adequate storage facilities for water in years of drought and at the same time insuring that the farmers in the Central Valley have enough water to sustain their livelihood.
This past weekend I drove on I-5 through the Central Valley and saw a lot of fallow farmland along with the following signs:
“No water; no Central Valley jobs!”
“Is Growing Food Wasting Water?”
“Food Grows Where Water Flows”
And lastly, “California’s Future Depends on Water;
                     Build Dams Now”
Already hundreds of billions of gallons of water have been flushed out into the ocean to protect some little known species of shrimp, while the people who live in the Central Valley are suffering! Can anyone explain to me how this makes any sense?
So what’s the final verdict?
Is California following in the footsteps of Israel or Capetown, So. Africa?
Does California have a “Day Zero” in its future?
Posted on

Water, Part II

Look at a map and compare the size of Israel to the size of California. California is about 20X the size of Israel, and California has about 5X the population of Israel.
Israel presently has five large desalination plants and an additional one under construction. This is in addition to 30 brackish desalination plants that are largely utilized for farming. How many does California have? If you had guessed three and were on The Wheel of Fortune you would be out, as a guess that is too high leads to “Good-night Irene”!
The Pacific Institute, an Oakland based environmental think tank,  has conducted research on desalination for more than a decade. In 2012 the Institute launched a series of research reports that identified the key outstanding issues for desalination in California. So what happened after all these years of research? As of May, 2016, there were nine active proposals for desalination plants along the California coast. Wow! This sounds like progress . . .until it comes out that this number is down from 21 proposed projects in 2006 and 19 in 2012. Since 2006, however, only two new projects have been built, and one of these is quite small!
The other ocean desalination plants are in Santa Barbara, Catalina Island, Marina and San Nicholas Island. Together they can produce about 4,000 acre-feet a year. This indeed is a very small amount when compared to the new Carlsbad Desalination Plant that produces 56,000 acre-feet per year.

As of January, 2018, California water officials have approved $34.4 million in grants to eight desalination projects across the state. The money comes from Proposition 1, a water bond passed by state voters in November 2014 during the depths of the drought, and it highlights a new trend in purifying salty water for human consumption: only one of the projects is dependent on the ocean. Instead, six of the winning proposals are for brackish desalination and one is for research at the University of Southern California. In brackish desalination, salty water from a river, bay or underground aquifer is filtered for drinking, rather than taking ocean water, which is often up to three times saltier and more expensive to purify. As of 2013, there were roughly 24 brackish plants in California. Together they produce about 96,000 acre-feet of water a year. Another three plants are in design or under construction, and these three will add only 9,000 acre-feet annually. An additional 17 have been proposed, adding only 81,000 acre-feet of capacity.

So let’s get this straight. It’s been almost four years since Proposition 1 was passed, and only now have “California water officials” decided to invest in brackish desalination. As noted above the 24 brackish desalination plants (2013) produced the water equivalent of two Carlsbad-like plants, and the one Carlsbad plant produces only seven percent of the drinking water in San Diego.

So far this approach sounds less like Israel’s vision and more like Capetown’s procrastination. However, don’t make your final decision until you have the the final part of this three part series.

Posted on

Water – Part I

In the next three essays, I am going to discuss a water problem that three different places in the world have, and then I am going to describe the three very different ways that each of these places has approached the problem. 
One place had vision, and as a consequence developed a smart aggressive approach. The second place was cautious and did not develop the necessary vision soon enough, and consequently catastrophe is approaching. The third place has about as much vision as a blind mouse, and if foresight is going to be required to remedy its problem, there is no hope.
Like I said, problem that each of these three places share is water. All three of these places are arid, and in all three places rain falls almost solely in the winter, and largely in the north. In all three of these places irrigation and water engineering are vital to economic survival and growth.
The first place is Israel.
In the mid 1990s,Israel realized that the main groundwater aquifers, namely the Sea
of Galilee and the Jordan River were on the verge of collapse.  This was a turning point as Israel then realized that they could not rely solely on natural water. A significant drought in 1998-2002 pushed Israel to make a decision, as this drought prompted the Israeli government to promote large scale seawater desalinization, and now desalinization outstrips conventional water resources. With determination added to their vision, desalination supplied about 40% of Israel’s drinking water in 2015, and the goal is for Israel to supply 70% of its drinking water from desalination by 2050.
Israel’s approach is a good example of how foresight morphed into a vision, and when mixed with determination has led to a solution.
The second place is Capetown, South Africa. About ten years ago, the city was warned that it would require additional water resources in the future. But they procrastinated. In 2014 the six dams that supply water to the city of Capetown were full. But a prolonged three year drought since then has turned their situation from potentially bad to near-catastrophe. Cape Town’s reservoirs are dangerously low, at slightly more than a fifth of their capacity. That’s even worse than it sounds, since the last 10 percent of the water is hard to get.
Four desalination plants are now being built but are only about 50% completed and new water wells are being drilled. A plant to reuse effluent is being built, but their hesitancy to act when they were warned, has now caused the city to advise its 4 million residents that they are approaching “Day Zero,” the day that the city will be forced to shut off taps to homes and businesses because at that time the reservoirs will have gotten critically low!
Responding to this approaching crisis, the city had put in place strict water limits; each person is allowed 13 gallons (50 liters) of water per day. For scale, that’s roughly the amount of freshwater that goes down the drain in three or four flushes of an older toilet. As a result of this mandatory strict water conservation dictum and the lowering of the city’s water pressure, which resulted in a lesser flow rate, and fewer leaks, “Day Zero” has been pushed back from April, 2018 to 2019.
It’s not just the citizens that have had to make do with less water. The farmers were significantly affected too. According to The Verge, citing a city report, the water quota set aside for agriculture is 60 percent lower than in pre-drought years. Once farmers hit their limit, they were cut off, says Janse Rabie, who represents the South African agriculture lobbying group, Agri SA. “These strict water curtailments cost farmers dearly,” Rabie says in an email, “It also had an enormous impact on farm workers (particularly seasonal workers) who could not be employed or had to be let go.” Here water means jobs.
Capetown’s approach has been a combination of lack of foresight and too much wishful thinking that things would just get better. This combination when mixed with procrastination has led to the present problem in this South African city.
The third place is California. Does it have the vision and determination of Israel or will it suffer from the consequences of procrastination and lack of foresight similar to Capetown, So. Africa?
What can Californians realistically look forward to?
State tuned!
Posted on

Why Not Use Common Sense ?

A friend of mine sent me an article from the L.A. Times and his accompanying question was, “Are these are next homeless?” 

The article detailed a family of six living in Los Angeles near U.S.C. that was soon going to be forced out of their apartment. The family had lived in that same rundown apartment for four years, but last year the building was sold and all of the tenets were going to be evicted by the new owner. They have looked for another place that could accommodate their family, but despite the fact that both the mother and the father work as managers at pizza places, they cannot find any place that they can afford. Their present monthly rent is $1600/month, and they recently looked at a small 3BR house that rented for $3800/month, which is far out of their range. They have considered moving 60-70 miles outside of the city where housing is cheaper, but the commute would take hours, and they have only one car. The wife said, “It is not easy leaving “home,” family, schools, and church. We may have to live in our car for a while, or in a hotel.” As I read this article, I asked myself, “Where is the common sense?”
In L.A. stories similar to this are apparently not uncommon. Reportedly in L.A. 600,000 are “severely rent burdened” meaning that they spend at least 50% of their income on rent. Last year over 8000 became homeless for the first time, and reportedly for each rent increase of 5% in L.A., an additional 2000 will become homeless. The enormity of these statistics surprised me, and again I asked myself, “Where is the common sense?”
I read the article more than once, and then responded to my friend, “Yes, this is a big problem, but to me the answer for this particular family is pretty basic, but probably not what they want to hear. – move somewhere that you can afford, and find jobs close to where you relocate.”
California is an expensive place to live, and it is even more expensive to live in and around its major cities. Not surprising a lot of people want to live where the weather is nice, but everyone cannot live wherever they want. Let’s use some common sense . . .
If you want to live in X, you should evaluate whether or not you can afford to live in X.
After paying 50% of one’s income for rent, how long should it take to realize that you cannot afford to live in X.
About fifteen years ago a friend of mine and his wife realized that they would never be able to afford a house in Southern California. They decided that a choice had to be made – either stay in SoCal and rent or move someplace else. They used common sense, and moved to Texas. They left “home,” family, schools, and church, and now return once a year to visit.
Why don’t the powers that be come out and just state the obvious?
“If you and your family can not afford to live here, please use common sense and move to someplace that you can afford.”
Posted on

What’s Next ?

What’s next? Apple pie? Thanksgiving?

The left has slowly but steadily gone after things that a lot of us regard as good old Americana. Are they done? Not by a long shot, and that’s why I ask, “What’s next?”
I am assuming that no one needs a review of the push to stop saying “Merry Christmas,” as this leftward push has not been subtle, but there are more encroachments, some subtle and some, not so subtle.
When I was in school, it was called “Easter Vacation” and now it is “Spring Break.” Columbus Day had been a National Holiday, and now in many left-leaning circles, it is now called “Indigenous Peoples Day.” On some T.V. shows aimed at very small children Halloween is now being referred to as “Dress-up Day,” and Valentine’s Day is “Love Day.” (Valentine’s Day was originally named after Saint Valentine and All Hallows Eve, Halloween, refers to the eve of All Saints’ Day.) To the left there can be no reference, no matter how distant, to anything religious, therefore the need to get rid of the names, Valentine’s Day and Halloween. But why would the left stop there? There is a rumor that there is a bill pending in the state assembly of California by a Democrat that proposes to combine Abraham Lincoln’s birthday and George Washington’s birthday into President’s Day and to add May 1 as “International Worker’s Day” (just another way of saying “International Socialist Worker’s Day.” (aka May Day, as is celebrated in communist countries!)
Speaking about things truly Americana, The Boy Scouts have been around since 1910. The Scout Oath begins, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout law . . .
But wait, this has a reference to God, so, “sorry, no can do,” say those on the left who
have been working for years to undermine the Boy Scouts. First it was gay and transgender scouts, followed by openly gay scout leaders, and last year it was the welcoming of girls into Cub Scouts and Eagle Scouts. This steady undermining of The Boy Scouts has now resulted in a name change to “Scouts BSA” in 2019. However earlier this month finally some resistance from the Mormon Church. The Boy Scouts and the Mormon Church had initially formed a partnership 105 years ago based on shared beliefs in God, country, and the necessity of teaching morals and responsibility to boys. Despite the fact that approximately 20% of the Boy Scouts in the U.S. are Mormon, in the last five years these two groups have chosen different paths. As a result, the Church of the Latter Day Saints is severing ties with the Boy Scouts at the end of the year. With this loss of a big chunk of its members, I predict that the “Boy Scouts” will go belly-up, and thus another victory for the left.
So I reiterate, “What’s next?”
Posted on

Illegals for Trump!

Although President Trump is only one and one-half years into his first term, this morning I wondered if the illegals in California would vote for him in the next presidential election. I realize that it is a little early to speculate on the 2020 election, but the economic growth has been great here in California. Okay, okay I am cognizant of the fact that the illegals voted overwhelmingly for Hillary in 2016. but is ‘t the saying, “It’s the economy, stupid!” whenever attempting to figure out why people vote the way that they do?

First let’s look at the facts before making a rash prediction about how the illegals are going to vote in 2020.

Job growth in California for 2017 was more robust than expected. The state added 366,000 jobs in 2017, which was 11,100 more that in 2016. UCLA Anderson forecast that job gains were likely to accelerate this year partially because of the federal tax cut package that took effect in January. In this past April unemployment in California was down to 4.2% which set another record surpassing the 4.3% record set in both February and March of this year. Throughout the state but especially in Northern California the unemployment numbers are hard to believe with rates of 2.1 in San Francisco and San Mateo, 2.2 in Marin, and 2.4 and 2.5 in Santa Clara and Sonoma respectively. Wow! Dios Mio! In Sacramento a Chick-Fillet was going to increase it’s minimum wage to $17.00 per hour in order to retain its workers. If they are willing to pay this amount, does it not mean that there are plenty of jobs available – jobs for everyone, legal or illegal?
Like I overheard in my local taco shop yesterday when someone asked, ”¿Por qué Señor Trump?” The response was, “¡Es la economía, estúpido!”
Posted on

George Soros -A Good Guy?(Let Me Convince You)

Perhaps we should be looking at George Soros differently! Maybe we should be viewing him in a more favorable light. Now before you immediately stop reading, hear me out and let me convince you.
I presume that just about everyone knows that Mr. Soros is a very, very rich left-wing looney. Ignore that fact for a second and read on. In California prior to Election Day, 6/5/18, this  billionaire put his money where his mouth is. In California he made an effort to reshape California’s criminal justice system by propping up radical, anti-law enforcement candidates for district attorneys. Unfortunately, for him, his exorbitant effort came to a screeching halt, with most of his candidates losing decisively. Throughout California, law-and-order prosecutors who didn’t spew liberal dogma or have hostile views toward police won.
But wait, I think that we should encourage Mr. Soros to try again. Perhaps we should tell him that he just needs to increase his effort by putting more of his money into his next effort. Wait! Wait! Don’t stop. Read on. Let me convince you.
In Sacramento County Mr. Soros poured $400,000 into the campaign of Noah Phillips, an anti-police and pro Black Lives Matter candidate. Mr. Phillips lost to the incumbent pro-police candidate, Anne Schubert, by a 2:1 margin. Since Sacramento County went for Hillary by twenty-four points in the 2016 presidential election, I think that it is safe to identify it as a “blue” locale. In this “blue” county, the Soros candidate got walloped, while George Soros essentially contributed $400,000 to the local Sacramento economy.
In San Diego, Soros backed Geneviéve Jones-Wright to the tune of more than $1.5 million which was funneled through a political action committee that propped up Jones-Wright and supported reform of the criminal justice system. I did not vote for Jones-Wright, in part because I am always suspicious of hyphenated last names, and mostly because she had no experience prosecuting anybody. Jones-Wright was thoroughly beaten by a margin of 63% – 36%. Here again while the George Soros candidate got walloped, he essentially contributed a ton of money to the local economy.
In conclusion, as I stated at the top of this essay, perhaps we should be looking at George Soros differently. He just put a lot of his money into the California economy, and has very little to show for it. Maybe we should encourage Mr. Soros to try again, but this time with more money! Perhaps we should continue to encourage him until his candidates get above 40% of the vote.
Did I convince you?
Posted on

I Scoff!

At the end of regulation they missed a free throw, but got the rebound. A chance to win, but the player who got the rebound then dribbled the wrong way as time expired. Then the star and leader of the team pouted on the bench before the start of overtime, and they were then blown out in the overtime period. This almost sounds like what one would expect at a grade school game, but it was the first game of the N.B.A. championship. Championship series? I scoff!
But plays like this are only one reason that I am predicting that the T.V. rating for the NBA championship series on ABC will be disappointingly sub-par, and from my point of view, the poor ratings couldn’t happen to a more deserving station!
The other ridiculous thing that happened at the end of game one involved a charging call against the beloved home team, the Golden State Warriors. Over the years I have watched a ton of basketball, and I have never seen a charging call reversed by instant replay. The Cleveland fans are still screaming “conspiracy,” but I say, “incompetence!” This is supposed to be championship game, and if these are the best referees that the league has . . . I scoff!
Kevin Durant is one of the best players in the NBA. However, when he couldn’t beat the then championship team from the Golden State, he joined them! This certainly excited the fans in NorCal. However this sort of team shopping, trolling for a championship ring, turns off the fans in the rest of the country. Is anybody in any of the other NBA markets routing for or watching this “If I can’t beat you, I’ll join you” team? . . . I scoff!
However the crowning blow to this upcoming ratings debacle occurred when LeBron James said that neither team in the championship series would go to the White House to celebrate their championship with President Trump. Considering that last year LeBron called our president “a bum,” I am not certain that an invitation was coming.  Be that as it may, while LeBron is certainly quite a basketball player, when it comes to him spewing his political venom, not only do I scoff, but so does about 50% of the T.V. viewing audience.
Posted on

Use It or Lose It

Something must be wrong in Sacramento! As best I can tell our esteemed Attorney General, Xavier Becerra, has not filed a law suit against the federal government in weeks, perhaps even a month! I know that the legislature is in session as they are busy formulating laws to ban plastic straws, so the attorney general and his staff of lawyers must also be on the job. What are they doing with all their time? In order to keep their legal skills at a sharp level, shouldn’t they either use them or lose them?

Well it so happens that I have an inside source in the California Attorney General’s Office, and they are not idle. The following are some confidential quotes overheard by my source!
“When we looked at the recent employment statistics for California, we discovered that there were two groups that were not benefiting from the recent economic surge in California. Perhaps we can sue on behalf of these groups.”

A review of job statistics comparing March 2017 and March 2018 revealed the following:

Ten of California’s eleven industry sectors added a total of 326,300 jobs over the year. The largest job gains were in educational and health services, up 86,100 jobs (a 3.3 percent increase), construction, up 54,400 jobs (a 6.8 percent increase), and professional and business services, up 45,500 (a 1.8 percent increase). Other sectors adding jobs over the year were leisure and hospitality, trade, transportation and utilities, government, manufacturing, financial activities, information and mining and logging. Only one industry sector posted job declines over the year, “other services,” down a total of 5,300 jobs.
“Now we are not sure what ‘other services’ means, but does it really matter? Why should this group be left behind? Obviously the federal government and the Trump administration must be at fault. Let’s file a lawsuit!”

The federal household survey showed an increase in the number of employed Californians over the month of March, 2018 and the year from 3/2017-3/2018. It estimated the number of Californians holding jobs in March was 18,552,000, an increase of 2,000 from February, and up 290,000 from the employment total in March of last year. The number of unemployed Californians was 827,000 in March – down by 16,000 over the month, and down by 142,000 compared with March of last year.
“Sure at first glance these unemployment numbers look good, but let’s look at different sub-groups to see who has been slighted.
Perhaps if we look at employment data by race, age, and gender we can find some group that has been slighted by this recent economic surge.”
 
All age groups demonstrated significant decreases in unemployment including a decrease of 20.2% in the 35-44 age group, and a decrease of 19.4% in the >65 age group. All races demonstrated significant decreases in unemployment, including a decrease of 15.5% in whites, a decrease of 9.4% in blacks, and a decrease of 13.0% in Hispanics.
“Nothing here so far. But wait, there does appear to be a group that has been slighted. The so called rising tide has not lifted all boats. In males, 20 years or older, the number of unemployed has decreased 14.2%, whereas in females, 20 years or older, the number of unemployed has increased 2.2%!
Obviously the federal government and the Trump administration must be at fault. Let’s file a lawsuit!
Let’s get this right over to Xavier. Certainly Attorney General Becerra can set the wheels in motion for our next lawsuit against the federal government on behalf of ‘other services’ and the females in our state.”
I certain that all of you are relieved that the lawyers in the office of the Attorney General of California are going to keep using their legal skills, as we would not want them to lose their legal “acumen”!