More than one week ago, the Hews Media Group broke a big story about California State Assembly Speaker John Perez collaborating with former Assemblyman Tom Calderon and Central Basin Municipal Water District officials, “in an attempt to coerce three Maywood Mutual Water Districts into taking on unwanted projects that if they did not accept, the districts, as Calderon said, would be ‘dissolved with a stroke of a pen.’”

One of the water districts’ general managers later asked who Tom Calderon was, with Calderon answering, “I was a State Assemblyman, my other brothers were Assemblymen too, so (laughing) we got the politics covered.”

The projects would have landed Calderon and his allies, as well as the Central Basin Municipal Water District, a lucrative $25 million dollar consulting contract to “fix problems” that one Maywood Mutual Water District General Manager insisted twice in the audio recording “we don’t have, or we were already working with the WRD to fix,” Randy Economy and Brian Hews reported.

Hews Media Group has three audio tapes of the meetings and deal making, which are now in the hands of the FBI.

“Calderon is heard on the audio recording saying he was ‘summoned’ by Speaker Perez and the Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to call the meeting that included Enrique Gasca, one of Perez’s top staff lieutenants, CBMWD General Manager Art Agiular, Sergio Palos, General Manager of MMWD #1, Gustavo Villa, GM of MMWD #2, and Bob Ruhlf, who is the GM in District #3,” Hews reported.

This is big news worthy of a RICO investigation. RICO is the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, passed in 1970, to eliminate the ill-effects of organized crime on the nation’s economy.

But since the Hews Media Group October 24 story, it’s been only crickets in the mainstream media.

The other Calderon scandal

Instead, most news outlets are focused on the latest scandal surrounding Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montbello, Tom Calderon’s brother and chairman of the Senate Select Committee on California’s Film and Television Industries. He stands accused of offering to help provide a state tax credit for films that cost less than a $1 million.

On Saturday, I published a story about Freshman Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier, Ron’s nephew, authored two bills in 2013, AB 344 and AB 533, also involving the movie industry. And, Freshman Assemblyman Ian Calderon, 28, was given the chairmanship of the Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media committee, by Speaker John Perez.

Again, it’s been crickets in the main stream media.

It is likely that representatives of Assembly Speaker Perez made some phone calls discouraging further reporting of his Calderon connection. Hews Media Group reported that the Los Angeles Times was also provided with the audio tapes, but refused to do the story.

The meeting, the deal

At the time of the meeting, Hews Media Group reported that records show Calderon was being paid $11,000 per month by Central Basin Municipal Water District for “public affairs.”

Aguilar begins the meeting with an explanation of why they were “summoned” by Perez and Villaraigosa and then says to the Maywood Mutual Water Districts general managers, “anything can happen if the money is there.”

“Almost three minutes into the meeting, Enrique Gasca enters the room and is introduced as Speaker Perez’ Director by Calderon,” Hews wrote. “Calderon goes on to say, ‘if we can’t make this (the project) happen we are all in a lot of trouble, in terms of things you want from Sacramento and his (Speaker Perez) ability to retaliate or encourage things… I have never seen a Speaker who does not get what he wants.’”

Calderon continues: “Here’s the deal, we need to be proactive, if we are not, if we do not put a plan together we can all support, the MMWD’s can be dissolved with (Calderon snapping his fingers) a ‘stroke of the pen’, it can be done,” reported Hews Media Group.

“One of the GM’s angrily says, ‘and this is your solution to better quality water?’”

“Calderon answers him, ‘it (the water quality) doesn’t matter, the (goal of the project) does not matter.’”

The bill that Calderon was talking about was Assembly Bill 240, first authored by Perez after he became Speaker. The current bill was authored by Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, D-Lynwood.

The bill was also being pushed by former Assemblyman Tom Calderon, and only targeted the Maywood Mutual Water District.

AB 240 was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown.  According to Rendon, “AB 240 addresses the water quality problems in the 63rd Assembly district by requiring mutual water companies like those that that deliver water to Maywood’s residents to comply with the Brown Act and the Public Records Act—two icons of public agency law.”

The audio recording has Calderon telling the group that “the quality of the water is not an issue, but painting a perception that the water is bad is the intent and if the water is presented as being bad, then the money will be there.”

He goes on to say, “if we can do that, then that will make him (Speaker Perez) feel comfortable enough to go ahead and move forward (to disburse the $25 million). He (Perez) will want to have an independent agency receive the disbursement-Calderon indicates that CBMWD as the agency-and would be the appropriate entity to control the process.”

Twenty minutes into the meeting one of the Maywood water districts general managers asks “what do you want us to do?” Calderon’s response was, “as long as it is agreeable to us (Calderon, Aguilar), I don’t think the Speaker (Perez) is going to care how it is done, as long as it is getting there,” Hews reported.

Aguilar then prompts the GM’s for a “needs list” and tells them that, “it is in the best interests of you and your owners to cooperate with us and Speaker Perez.”

“In what was probably indicative of the entire meeting, one GM says to Aguilar, ‘so you want me to give you a list of things that I need to replace to solve a problem I don’t have.’” Aguilar’s response was a loud laugh followed by “yeah.”

For the audio recordings, click HERE.

By Katy Grimes

A new budget trailer bill will gut the state Public Records Act at the local level. The Public Records Act provides Californians the ability to obtain documents about state and local government actions and hold government officials accountable.

What special interest group would have the chutzpah to push for a law to prevent members of the public from obtaining records from local governments?

Until June 12, 2013, California Assembly Bill 76 had been an empty shell for a “budget trailer bill” to be passed as a supplement to the 2013-2014 California state budget.

“Union fingerprints are all over Assembly Bill 76,” said Kevin Dayton, CEO of the Dayton Policy Institute and Labor Issues Solutions, LLC. “Many of the substantive policy changes in the bill are related to union objectives. These proposals have not been considered in public hearings and are too obscure and complicated to recognize unless you are already familiar with the related labor issues.”

Trailer bill process

The empty budget trailer bills, called “spot bills,” usually sit on a shelf until the last minute they are needed, and usually on the day the budget is due, June 15. They are not vetted and don’t go through the usual public legislative committee process. Legislators are asked to vote on these bills, often having just seen them for the first time.

While both parties have been guilty of abusing the trailer bill process, the Democratic Party has been completely controlling the Legislature since 1996.

Republicans used to sneak pork into trailers bills, but Democrats consistently use the trailer bill process to whittle away at Democracy.

The Department of Finance explains trailer bills: “There are generally budget changes proposed by the Governor or the Legislature which necessitate changes to existing law in order to implement the budget changes. If this is the case, separate bills are introduced to implement the change. These budget implementation bills are called “trailer bills” and are heard concurrently with the Budget Bill. By law, all proposed statutory changes necessary to implement the Governor’s Budget are due to the Legislature by February 1.”

But the process has been abused, with trailer bills being used as a conduit for individual pieces of legislation that did not make it into the budget, or for legislation that could not make it through the committee process.

Gutting the Public Records Act

“Legislative Democrats approved a trailer bill, Assembly Bill 76, as part of the majority vote budget plan enacted on Friday that suspends key provisions of the California Public Records Act relating to the ability of taxpayers to request government data and documents from local governments,” Assemblyman Dan Logue, R-Linda, explained in a press statement. “If Governor Brown signs the measure into law, the new provisions would impact cities, counties and special districts throughout the state.

“Gutting the Public Records Act is a dream come true for scandal-ridden local governments such as the city of Bell.  Under this law, bureaucrats would be able to shield corruption and scandal from taxpayers. Time and time again, the majority party has pulled out all the stops to block Californians from knowing how their government is operating.  California’s right to know should not be compromised because the majority party continues to overspend.”

If the Governor signs this measure into law, Logue plans to introduce legislation to restore the Public Records Act.

Specifically, AB 76 would:

* Make optional provisions in current law requiring local government officials to respond to requests from the public for public documents within 10 days of the request;

* Encourage local governments to adhere to the current provisions in law as “best practices,” but give them the ability to announce annually if they are suspending these requirements;

* Eliminate requirements that local government officials must help citizens complete their Public Records Act requests by disclosing what records are available to be requested; and

* Allow local governments to decide whether to provide an electronic copy of documents or provide paper documents.

California receives “F” grade for lack of transparency

Logue noted that California was recently given an “F” grade by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group for its lack of transparency in government spending, ranking 49th out of the 50 states.

He said that the budget trailer bill was one in a series of moves by Democrats to make government less open and less accessible to the people.  Earlier this year, Democrats passed dozens of empty so-called budget spot bills that paved the way for the type of backroom budget deals that included the provision to undermine the Public Records Act.  They also blocked Republican-authored legislation to make the legislative and budget processes more transparent.

“This latest scheme to undermine the Public Records Act will effectively shut the people out of their government if it becomes law,” said Logue.  “Access to public data and records is key to empowering the people to make their voices heard.  Every elected official — regardless of party — should embrace openness and transparency as our key governing principle.  Governor Brown should veto this offensive legislation and reaffirm the state’s commitment to an accessible and accountable government for the taxpayers it serves.”

The Assembly announced late Wednesday it intended to pass the bill on without the records act changes, but only after receiving blistering heat from Republicans and editorial boards around the state.

The Assembly will vote Thursday to annul AB 76 or SB 71, the budget bills which would  change the state records act.

By Katy Grimes

California Assembly leaders enjoy an annual slush fund of $38 million. It’s money they can do with however they please.

The Assembly’s operating budget was $112 million for the 2011-12 fiscal year that ended June 30, 2012. But $150 million was appropriated. The remaining $38 million was spent at the discretion of Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles. 

It’s like a giant, sugary slushy.

In 2011 and 2012, I reported on the Democratic stonewalling done to then-Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Canada, when he tried to get Perez to release the entire Assembly budget, including the “discretionary” spending, in a move toward transparency. Portantino was stonewalled and punished.

Task force

I just spoke with Phillip Ung, California Common Cause policy advocate, about this gigantic fund of unaccountable millions, and how this happens every year without intervention, exposure or accountability. Ung said that the Assembly has no oversight other than itself.

Assembly Rule 15.7 requires an annual performance audit in addition to a financial audit. But Assembly leaders have historically ignored this rule.

Perez formed a legislative records task force late in 2011 after the Sacramento Bee and the Los Angeles Times filed a lawsuit demanding the operating records. In a move which can only be described as the fox guarding the henhouse, Perez named Assembly Rules Committee Chairwoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, as its leader. Assembly operations are controlled by Perez and the committee.

The task force did nothing in 2011 other than release doctored records of Assembly members’ office spending, specifically targeting Portantino.

Early in 2012, Portantino demanded the release of all Assembly records to the public. But Skinner’s committee denied his request, saying the Assembly’s letters and correspondences are exempt from transparency under the law.

As of April 2012, when I wrote my last story about the task force, there were still no records available of any meetings. To date, finding any information about the task force is difficult. I contacted Skinner’s office for a status update of the task force. The two staff members I spoke with said they couldn’t locate any information about the task force, and referred me to Perez’s office.

“The Speaker’s committee on transparency is secret,” Portantino told me in April 2012. “The minutes on the committee…secret. We don’t know if they’ve ever even met. Members should be embracing transparency. It’s not a radical concept.”

The Assembly Rules Committee then killed Portantino’s AB 1887, which would have required the state controller to audit the spending by the Legislature for the next two years.  Thereafter, an independent firm would perform the annual audits.

“We celebrate when the auditor audits Bell, CA,” Portantino said. “We are an agency which budgets more than we need for a slush fund.”

AB 1887 also would have required the Legislature to return any of the $146 million not spent. However, without that law, Perez gets to decide where and how the money gets spent.

In 2011, leaders in the Assembly and Senate authorized $200,000 for lawyers to keep the information secret in the fight over records, according to Portantino.

Violating its own rules

One of the Standing Rules of the Assembly calls for an annual performance audit of the Assembly. But in 2011, Trent Hager, Portantino’s chief of staff, told me the Assembly has never actually complied with this rule. And Hager ought to know because he worked for the Rules Committee for many years.

The rule reads:

“Performance Audit — 15.7. In addition to the annual financial audit required by Rule 15.6, the Committee on Rules shall contract for an audit of the administrative operations of the Assembly. The administrative departments to be audited shall be determined by the Committee on Rules. An organization performing an audit pursuant to this rule shall be selected by a majority of the membership of the Committee on Rules. A contract for an audit shall be awarded through a competitive bidding procedure. Audits shall be prepared in a manner and form to be determined by the organization performing the audit, and shall be consistent with generally accepted accounting principles.

“All findings and recommendations reported by an auditing firm shall be made available to Members and to the public.”

One of the reasons for secrecy may be the worst kept secret in the Capitol — the numbers of Capitol staffers on the payroll of the Legislature who actually work on political campaigns, something banned by law.

Where’s the slush?

Ung explained that most of the slush fund money goes to pet issues of the Assembly leaders. Rules governing the slush fund, which is contained in the Assembly operating budget, are “vague and ambiguous,” making it easy for abuse. And Ung said it’s highly questionable to send money from the slush fund to various state agencies without an Assembly vote.

That’s just how the Assembly obtains its surplus, according to a 2011 signed court declaration by Gus Demas, then fiscal officer for the Assembly Rules Committee. The details of the budget on the state website do not include the slush fund. But some expenditures were reported by the Daily News, which got ahold state budget documents:

The California Commission on the Status of Women ($150,000);

The California Conservation Corps ($680,000);

The California Military Department ($800,000);

The California State University system ($400,000);

The Department of Education ($8 million); and

The Department of Parks and Recreation ($1.5 million).

Other recipients were the Secretary of State’s Office and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Assembly leaders have spent more than $73 million of the slush fund since December 2009.

According to Demas’ court declaration, Assembly leaders gave $55 million to state agencies between December 2008 and August 2011. Perez spent another $21 million between December 2011 and Aug. 31, 2012, according to state budget documents.

Katy Grimes:

The California Senate killed Assembly Speaker John Pérez’s AB 1500, which would have taxed out-of-state businesses. Ding dong, one more tax measure is dead… for now.

Perez worked like a mad man on Friday to try and nab enough Republican support for his “middle class scholarship” bill. But it wasn’t about the scholarship–it was just one more attempt to tax businesses for another type of California welfare program.

When Perez saw that he didn’t have the votes at the eleventh hour, he gave in.

Single Sales Factor

AB 1500 was a $1 billion tax increase on out-of-state businesses that create jobs, pay taxes on their property, sales and payroll receipts, and have thousands of employees in California.

As California Employers Against Higher Taxes correctly pointed out, “Proposition 24 sought to make this change in 2010, and California voters overwhelmingly rejected it by two million votes.”

Perez said that a tax loophole is costing California $1 billion per year. But it was not really a loophole: Until the 2011 tax year, corporations had been calculating income taxes using property, payroll and sales for more than 40 years. AB 1500 would have removed the traditional tax calculation, and taxed companies solely on income.

According to the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, far too many businesses that employ thousands of Californians would pay more taxes under a mandatory Single Sales Factor, regardless of where they are headquartered.

According to The Tax Foundation, California compares poorly to other states in terms of how its tax climate effects the ability to attract and retain jobs. Only 13 states currently mandate SSF as the sole calculation method. In order to compete nationally, California must do a better job of giving companies a reason to come here, invest here and create jobs.

Under current law, SSF is available for any company for whom it makes sense, and others may elect the traditional formula and pay taxes based on their sales, payroll and property.

Wheeling dealing

“The altered proposal would have exempted tobacco giant Altria from the tax hike, as well as other big corporations. It would have restored the state’s Healthy Families healthcare program for low income children, which was eliminated in the budget Gov. Jerry Brown signed earlier this summer,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Perez tried his best to wheel and deal, but Republican lawmakers resisted.

California’s free-fall

As California remains mired in one of the worst economic free falls in state history, it clearly was not the time to overturn the bipartisan legislative agreement designed to create jobs, stability and predictability.

Even with concessions and exemptions, Perez was unable to negotiate his way into support for the tax increase–because every legislator in the state has out-of-state businesses residing in his or her district. Jobs and businesses matter more than ever.

The Tax Foundation explains that California’s individual income tax has the second highest rate and one of the most highly progressive structures in the nation. “In 2010, California’s state-level individual income tax collections were $1,229 per person, which ranked 5th highest nationally. Since most small businesses are S Corporations, partnerships, or sole proprietorships, they pay their business taxes at the rates for individuals. That makes California’s taxes on small businesses some of the most burdensome in the nation.”

California’s high tax rates, high land costs, high labor and energy costs, and staggering regulations are disincentive enough for out-of-state companies to invest in the state.

Legislators should be providing more incentives to create jobs, instead of continuing to kill off businesses. This defeat was one small step for mankind.

By Katy Grimes

SACRAMENTO — The California Redevelopment Agency was given the ax in February by Gov. Jerry Brown. Since then, lawmakers have been working as diligently as Dr. Frankenstein to breathe new life back into the monster.

Many Californians said good riddance to the abusive, over-reaching agencies, notorious for taking private property through eminent domain.

But many never believed that redevelopment would really end.

The state’s redevelopment programs came under intense scrutiny as California’s budget problems worsened. Agency abuses were widespread and notorious. In 2010 one Senate committee found that many of the redevelopment affordable-housing programs spent more on employee salaries than building low-income housing.

Given that 20 percent of all redevelopment funds went toward subsidized housing projects, it became evident that taxpayers were footing the bill for an expensive bait-and-switch.

But even with the well-documented abuse, many lawmakers never gave up hope for continuing the low-income housing programs.

Almost immediately after Brown killed the redevelopment agencies, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, authored legislation that would allow cities and counties to keep the low-income housing dollars from redevelopment agencies. However, Steinberg was unable get his bill passed.

By March, there were already 14 bills authored by legislators to save or restore redevelopment agencies.

‘Sustainable’ low-income housing

Steinberg introduced SB 1151 and SB 1156, which would allow cities and other local agencies to form new redevelopment agencies, and have access to billions of dollars in former RDA assets, with a focus on green, “sustainable communities.”

“Sustainable” is the 21^st century code word for publicly subsidized, high-cost construction.

Simultaneously, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, introduced AB 1585, which would transfer the remaining balances in redevelopment low-income housing funds to local housing agencies, for new earmarked spending on yet more affordable housing.

Both of these bills passed the Assembly Tuesday, paving the way for the restoration of California redevelopment programs, but with a new face on the monster; this face is green.

“Affordable-housing advocates believe that poor people should be housed in brand-new apartments or houses, which is silly,” my CalWatchDog.com colleague Steven Greenhut wrote when Brown killed redevelopment. “Thanks to the housing bust, there’s more affordable housing available than ever. The market does a great job providing homes and apartments. Government ‘affordable housing’ breeds dependency, as people who live in housing at below-market cost lose any incentive to ever move out of those subsidized places.”

“This bill funds the green dream,” Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks, opined during Assembly debate Tuesday. “This is an encroachment of our freedom. We killed it last session, and are bringing it back this session!”

Convenient flip-flopping

The speeches made by lawmakers Tuesday defending Steinberg’s bill were made by the same lawmakers who supported Brown killing redevelopment. Apparently the satisfaction of a temporary money grab has lost its luster—the budget certainly wasn’t balanced on the back of redevelopment.

“I don’t want to re-litigate the demise of redevelopment,” said Assemblyman Roger Dickinson, D-Sacramento. But Dickinson quickly provided an alibi for the Legislature: “It was the Supreme Court that the eliminated redevelopment. We were interested in preserving the ability of redevelopment on a voluntary basis.”

Dickinson said that critics who say that the Legislature is imposing something on local government are wrong. “It is completely voluntary. It will recreate the opportunity for local communities to build in a sustainable manner as they see fit,” Dickinson said.

“There is nothing in this bill reconstructing redevelopment,” Assemblyman Jim Nielsen, R-Gerber, and added, “There is no freedom without private property.”

By Wayne Lusvardi

Speaker John A. Perez’s push of Assembly Bill 1532 through the State Assembly on Tuesday, May 29, signals a shift from regulation of air pollution to an outright civil war on business and industry in California.

AB 1532 is not content with just using pollution taxes collected under California’s Cap and Trade emissions trading program to lower water, power, and natural gas bills for ratepayers, due to the looming higher price of green power. Rather, AB 1532 will directly use Cap and Trade taxes to parasitically transfer jobs taken from the private sector, to political pork jobs in the public sector.  It could also end up circumventing the limitation of new taxes of Propositions 13 and 26.  The passage of AB 1532 is a provocative act that crosses the line between regulation and outright plunder of the private sector for public sector make work green jobs programs.

AB 1532 passed the State Assembly by a 47 to 26 vote. The record of who voted for or against AB 1532 was not available online as of the writing of this article.

AB 1532 is a parasitical public sector jobs grab

Cap and Trade is a set of regulations under California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 — AB 32 — to reduce air pollution by requiring industries and public utilities to buy pollution permits, also called pollution credits or allowances.

In reality, Cap and Trade is a program to socialize water, power, and natural gas rates to shift the coming burden of the high cost of green power onto the middle class.  Thus, the enormous taxes collected under the Cap and Trade program were to be rebated to utility ratepayers to socialize the “rate shock” of green power.  But AB 1532 takes this one step further by using Cap and Trade taxes to fund local governments and create parasitical green jobs programs.

AB 1532 will not backfill jobs lost in those industries directly affected by California’s Cap and Trade pollution permit trading law.  Instead, it will create another self-perpetuating bureaucracy of political patronage and jobs programs under the guise of “clean tech” industries and air pollution reduction programs.

AB 1532 will divert “investment towards the most disadvantaged communities in the state.” It will also fund “small businesses, schools, affordable housing associations, water agencies, local governments, and other community institutions (including public universities) to benefit from statewide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”

In other words, AB 1532 is just another tax to fund government and public schools, and redistribute jobs in return for political patronage.  It is an end run around Prop 13 and Prop 26, both of which require a two-thirds vote for any tax, fee, levy, or tax allocation.

Price of pollution permits will go up even without gaming system

Once established, it will incentivize government gaming of the Cap and Trade system to inflate the price of pollution credits. According to energy consultant Robert Lucas of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance, government gaming of the Cap and Trade system will likely double the annual amount of taxes collected under Cap and Trade regulations. Cap and Trade taxes would be expected to rise from $6.25 to $12.5 billion per year — or from $50 to $100 billion over the next 8 years.

Even if government does not game the system to its taxing advantage, the program is supposed to reduce the number of pollution permits each year as air pollution is improved.  The fewer the permits, the higher the price for the pollution permits, and the greater the pollution taxes collected. By design, there will be about 15 percent fewer pollution permits available to trade by the year 2020. Thus, pollution permit prices will likely rise without any gaming of the system. What is made to look like the workings of the so-called pollution credit market will actually be a structured way to inflate the price of pollution permits.

Reduce production or ration public utilities?

If, however, there are no credits to buy because there is no more pollution that can be realistically reduced, then industries and utilities may offset their pollution by planting trees or burying carbon in the ground. More of a false economy will be created and expanded.

But this will do little to reduce air pollution as long as population policies under AB 375 — the anti-urban sprawl bill — continue to divert growth to urban air basins that trap pollution.  The solution to pollution is dilution, not concentration.

Or if all else fails, industries and utilities can simply reduce production or call for rationing of water, power, and natural gas. Clean air at any cost.

AB 1532 is point of no return — the “Pottery Barn Rule”

The next step with AB 1532 will be its review in the state senate. Under Senate President pro-tem Darrell Steinberg, this is likely to result in passage and forwarding to Gov. Brown for signature.  The legislature and governor are likely to pass AB 1532 before political redistricting may change the composition of the legislature.

AB 1532 has fired the first symbolic shots in a civil war of what is permitted under the Global Warming Solutions Act — AB 32.  Several nonprofit liberal think tanks have rendered quasi-legal opinions that California’s Cap and Trade taxes cannot be used beyond providing utility ratepayers with rebates.  But Assembly Speaker John Perez has signaled he is going to push the legal limits of what can be funded with Cap and Trade taxes.

In the ancient Roman Empire, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon River with his army, thus signaling civil war with the Roman Senate.  At Fort Sumter, the South fired the first shots in the Civil War between the North and South states. California State Assembly Speaker John Perez has crossed the point of no return with AB 1532, signaling a war on California’s business, industry and the middle class.

Gen. Colin Powell once cited what is called the “Pottery Barn Rule” about starting an unpopular war: “if you break it — you buy it.”  And Assembly Speaker John Perez and the Democratic Party are about to buy themselves a civil war chock full of unforeseeable consequences.