Children entering charter schools in Los Angeles already outperform peers who attend traditional public schools, then pull ahead even a bit more, especially those attending charter middle schools … .

 

Pupils who enter charter elementary or high schools displayed significantly higher test scores, relative to counterparts entering traditional public schools at the same grade levels, the report said. Elementary students in charter schools benefit from slightly steeper learning curves, relative to peers remaining in conventional schools, researchers said. Charter high schools were no more or less effective than traditional schools in boosting student performance.

 

Charter schools, while publicly funded, operate independently of many state requirements and the administration of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Some 274 charter schools operate in L.A. Unified this fall, more than any school district nationwide.

 

The four-year study of 66,000 students at charter schools in Los Angeles Unified — one of the largest research projects yet on charters — offers generally positive news about their quality of education.

The $490 million ‘Great Public Schools Now Initiative’

The study is sure to be invoked by Broad and others unhappy with the quality of education in the nation’s second-largest district. In September, the Los Angeles Times obtained a copy of a 44-page report prepared for Broad called “The Great Public Schools Now Initiative” that corroborated earlier stories that Broad hoped to increase from 16 percent to 50 percent the number of L.A. Unified students in charters, which would require the creation of an estimated 260 new schools. A key passage in the executive summary:

The opportunity is ripe for a significant expansion of high-quality charter schools in Los Angeles. Thanks to the strength of its charter leaders and teachers, as well as its widespread civic and philanthropic support, Los Angeles is uniquely positioned to create the largest, highest-performing charter sector in the nation. Such an exemplar would serve as a model for all large cities to follow.

According to the Times account, the report cited …

… numerous foundations and individuals who could be tapped to raise money, including the Bill and Melinda Gates, Bloomberg, Annenberg and Hewlett organizations. Among the individuals cited as potential targets for fundraising were Eli Broad, Irvine Co. head Donald Bren, former entertainment mogul David Geffen and Tesla’s Elon Musk.

 

It also suggested a strategy of grassroots organizing and civic engagement designed to generate more interest among parents in charter schools.

UTLA, CTA gear up for public-relations war

The California Teachers Association and its largest chapter, United Teachers Los Angeles, are ramping up for the challenge. The UTLA has already launched a picketing campaign against the plan. At a November rally, CTA President Eric Heins said, “We are here to say to Eli Broad and to Walmart that our schools are not for sale. … The 325,000 members of the California Teachers Association stand arm in arm with UTLA and with CFT to say no to Eli Broad, to say no to Walmart, and to help build the schools that all L.A. students deserve.”

The CTA has won support from Diana Ravitch, a high-profile education reformer and author who’s made an odyssey from harsh union critic to someone who agrees with the union claim that there is something unsavory, corporate and ominous about a school reform movement organized by billionaires. That’s how she characterized Broad’s effort on her website.

“Will the [LAUSD] board go along with Eli’s silent coup or will they choose someone to represent the public interest?” Ravitch wrote.

Broad’s defenders describe his school reform ideas as very comparable to President Obama and his push for school and teacher accountability. But the nation’s two largest teachers unions, the National Education Association (which counts the CTA as its biggest affiliate) and the American Federation of Teachers (the California Federation of Teachers is its biggest affiliate), reject that comparison.

Obama’s recent decision to sign the Every Student Succeeds Act, a national education framework replacing 2002’s No Child Left Behind law, would appear to back up the NEA’s and AFT’s view. It pulls back sharply from federal accountability requirements imposed on states and individual school districts.

The new law swept to bipartisan passage because of an unusual coalition of Democrats who joined teacher unions in saying too much class time was being spent on testing and Republicans who said Congress should not be a “national school board,” in the phrase of Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a former secretary of education.

More videos from Calle’s interview with Walker will be released soon.

Mounting woes — from applicant backlogs to outdated regulations — have raised serious concerns among analysts and policymakers.

In part, the challenges facing the Medi-Cal system came about because of administrative changes triggered by the federal Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Here it’s called Covered California. As CalWatchdog.com reported, a combination of cuts in federal and state budgetary subsidies boosted provider costs.

“A provision of Obamacare hiked the rates for primary care doctors to the substantially higher Medicare rates for two years, but those increases ended on Dec. 31,” reported the San Jose Mercury News. “A second blow came last month when the state cut the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate by another 10 percent, a reduction approved by California lawmakers in 2011 but delayed in a court battle that doctors ultimately lost.”

But the ACA has made an even greater impact on California’s health care challenges by ballooning the population accessing Medi-Cal benefits. As the Mercury News reported, Obamacare opened the floodgates in Jan. 2014, resulting in 2.7 million more recipients to date.

California’s expanded recipient group now makes up 17 percent of total national Obamacare enrollment, even though California’s overall population is just 12 percent of the U.S. total.

State health officials, according to the Mercury News, have concluded that by the middle of 2016, “more than 12.2 million people — nearly a third of all Californians — will be on Medi-Cal.” Meanwhile, the program already consumes about two-thirds of California state-government spending on health and human services overall.

Budgetary fears

For both Gov. Jerry Brown and Sacramento legislators, these trend lines have raised sharp worries, as McKnight’s news service reported:

“State lawmakers this week said the latest enrollment news is alarming, and that even if a new pending rate request hike goes through, there is concern the state will run out of funding to care for its Medicaid recipients. State Medicaid costs are up 4.3 percent this year while federal share of costs for new enrollees will begin dropping in 2016, according to Gov. Jerry Brown.”

Brown has made an effort to head some costs off at the pass in his budget plan. According to State of Reform, a health-care think tank, “Brown has earmarked $2 billion in total funds ($943.2 million General Fund dollars) to cover mandatory Medi-Cal expansion.”

But pressure to change the budgetary calculus in California’s favor has intensified.

Reducing access

The big picture for Medi-Cal has officeholders and policymakers so nervous because of the ripple effects of increased costs and recipient rolls. State of Reform observed:

“In addition to Medi-Cal primary cuts making it potentially impossible for new patients to find physicians, President Barack Obama’s executive action will make approximately 1 million undocumented immigrants in California eligible for health insurance tax subsidies.”

That has critics warning access to doctors could decrease sharply. In a sobering report issued by the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the impact of the president’s actions was incalculable:

“The benefits received by undocumented immigrants through these programs are almost entirely funded by the state and would therefore result in additional General Fund costs of an unknown amount. The General Fund costs to provide state–funded benefits to this population are unknown at this time.”

With the federal government putting the squeeze on California’s budget, state doctors have become increasingly scarce.

“There are mounting concerns there will not be enough plan doctors to accommodate the enrollment surge,” according to McKnight’s. “One recent study found that only 57 percent of the state’s primary care doctors accept new Medi-Cal patients.”

As a result, increasing numbers of recipients have been winding up in the ER. As the Fresno Bee observed, that transfer of burdens has undermined the claim advanced by Obamacare proponents “that patients with insurance would have primary care doctors to take care of them and less reason to use expensive and overcrowded hospital emergency rooms.”

Although experts have not determined the likely extent of doctors’ unwillingness to treat Medi-Cal patients, California lawmakers have begun to brace for the worst: a substantial budgetary increase that will not be covered by the federal government.

Instead, the higher health tab may have to be absorbed by increased taxes, cuts in other budget areas, or both.

The president also obviously wants to keep pointing out that, despite the beginning of the race to succeed him, he is not a lame duck. He said:

I’ve only got two years left, but two years is a long time … and two years is also the time in which we’re going to be setting the stage for the next presidential election and the next 10 years of American policy. I intend to run through the tape, and work really hard, and squeeze every last little bit of change and improvement into the lives of ordinary Americans and middle-class Americans that I can.

According to the Chronicle, he spoke before “about 60 donors at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser at the Russian Hill home of Sandy Robertson, a tech financier, and his wife, Jeanne.”

But the president’s ambitious agenda already is putting up a higher price tag for California. As the Chronicle itself also noted in an editorial on the president’s amnesty program:

The actions, which are being challenged in court, could delay deportation for millions of immigrants who have not attained legal status — hundreds of thousands of whom live in California.

Since current state law allows “deferred action” immigrants to apply for certain government services in health and human services, that would mean a new and potentially costly strain on those programs as well.

“The President’s recent executive action on immigration would have a highly uncertain fiscal impact on human services programs,” wrote the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office in a report about the state budget released on Thursday. The office also wrote similar language in a separate report on the state’s health care budget.

The programs for which these immigrants would be newly eligible include Medi-Cal, in-home health care services, and the Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants. CAPI is a state program that provides cash assistance to legal immigrants who are ineligible for Supplementary Security Income or disability assistance due to their immigration status.

The potential of adding hundreds of thousands of recipients to these programs is daunting, to say the least, and Gov. Jerry Brown hasn’t included any additional funding for this possibility in his current budget.

While the president called for cooperation between government and industry to increase the security of online systems, Tim Cook, leading tech speakers, called for industry to address the problem.

The texts of the speeches are not yet available online. But Stanford News reported Obama said, “This has to be a shared mission. Government cannot do this alone. But the private sector cannot do it alone, either.”

The president also brought up a controversial topic that has brought opposition from Silicon Valley titans, most of whom supported him during his election campaigns: government abuse of its snooping powers. It was on his watch that Edward Snowden, currently in exile in Russia, revealed the National Security Agency spies on most digital communications.

“Grappling with how the government protects the American people from adverse events while making sure the government itself is not abusing its capabilities is hard,” Obama said. “The cyber world is the wild, wild west. To some degree, we’re asked to be the sheriff.”

But he asked, “What safeguards do we have against the government intruding on our own privacies?”

‘Best protection’

Taking the podium right before Obama, Cook spoke of cooperating with government. “Safeguarding the world of digitized personal information is an enormous task,” Cook said. “And no single company or organization can accomplish it on its own. That is why we’re committed to engaging productively with the White House and Congress and putting the results of these conversations into action.”

However, according to the San Jose Mercury News, Cook also said, “People have entrusted us with their most personal and precious information. We owe them nothing less than the best protection that we can possibly provide.”

That was a reference to Apple automatically encrypting all data on its devices, despite being denounced by Obama’s FBI. Apple’s action was followed by Google on its Android devices.

As the Mercury News reported, “In his speech, Cook emphasized the importance of protecting consumer privacy and took a veiled shot at critics in the administration and law enforcement who have complained that Apple’s encryption practices have made it difficult for them to pursue criminals and other bad actors. Cook argued that his company and others have an obligation to protect customer data.”

Cybersecurity Executive Order

As part of his actions in this area, yesterday Obama signed Executive Order 13636, “Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity.” According to the White House’s website:

“The Executive Order is designed to increase the level of core capabilities for our critical infrastructure to manage cyber risk. It does this by focusing on three key areas: (1) information sharing, (2) privacy, and (3) the adoption of cybersecurity practices.

“The EO tasked the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) to work with the private sector to identify existing voluntary consensus standards and industry best practices and build them into a Cybersecurity Framework. The Administration recognizes that there are private-sector cyber leaders who are already implementing strong cybersecurity controls, policies, procedures and innovations and asked these companies to help us shape best practices across critical infrastructure. The President then directed DHS [Department of Homeland Security] to establish a voluntary program to promote the adoption of the Framework.”

However, given Silicon Valley’s leeriness toward government actions, as expressed by Cook, time will tell how much cooperation there will be on this program.

He’ll talk at the White House Summit on Cybersecurity and Consumer Protection. According to Stanford News, participants include other government leaders, law-enforcement officials, consumer advocates, students and executives from finance, technology, security and communications companies.

Most watched will be the president’s remarks on information security and the reaction of top Silicon Valley executives, Jim Harper told CalWatchdog.com; he’s a senior fellow in information studies at the Cato Institute. He said that, because the president now is a lame duck and doesn’t face re-election, he might not “feel he has to be too strong on cybersecurity” by his own government.

It’s been less than two years since National Security contract employee Edward Snowden exposed how the NSA essentially scoops up almost all data in America. Yet neither the president nor Congress has advanced any substantial changes in policy.

“Obama has essentially allowed the NSA free rein,” Harper said. “And what the NSA has done is a major setback for Silicon Valley” because potential customers, especially overseas, can’t be sure American services aren’t bugged by the NSA from the start. That situation encourages business moving to the foreign competition.

Harper said he expects “some of the speeches from Silicon Valley will give him a piece of their mind” on the security issue. Most watched will be the comments of Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple Inc., the Valley’s most glittering and profitable company.

And because of the president’s problem with government spying on data, Harper added, anything he says about private security networks will be questioned.

FCC regulations

The president’s visit also comes as his appointees on the Federal Communications Commission seek heavier regulation of the Internet through what is called “Net Neutrality” or the “Open Internet.” It’s a topic he also might address.

According to the FCC’s website, “Under this principle, consumers can make their own choices about what applications and services to use and are free to decide what lawful content they want to access, create, or share with others. This openness promotes competition and enables investment and innovation.”

Critics charge Net Neutrality would mean 1930s-era telephone regulations applied to the Internet, with heavy handed government involvement stifling innovation.

Harper said Obama now is “at the mercy of the bureaucrats” he appointed. And because the president is a lame duck, he doesn’t have a compelling reason to go against the FCC.

The Federal Election Commission also is getting into the act. The Washington Examiner reported today, “Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning ‘dark money’ in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns.”

Silicon Valley

Silicon Valley remains the driving engine of California’s economy, as well as much of the U.S. and world economies. So the reactions of tech luminaries to the president’s words will be telling on how the industry, which has been increasingly active in politics, will be reacting to Obama administration actions.

Just last October, Apple offered stronger encryption on its communications, bringing down a condemnation from the Obama administration.

Reported the Guardian, “The latest version of Apple’s operating system for desktop and laptop computers, Mac OS X 10.10 ‘Yosemite,’ encourages users to turn on the company’s FileVault disk encryption, as the company hardens its pro-security stance. … The FBI’s director, James Comey, decried the company’s decision to offer similar tools on mobile devices running iOS 8.”

Google quickly followed suit with its Android operating system.

Speakers

According to the White House agenda, in addition to Cook, those in the private sector scheduled to speak or on panels include:

• Stanford President John Hennessy;
• Michael Brown, CEO, Symantec;
• Lorrie Faith Cranor, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University and Advisory Board Member, Electronic Frontier Foundation;
• Stina Ehrensvard, CEO and Founder, Yubikey;
• Mark Kelsey, CEO, LexisNexis;
• Scott Charney, Corporate VP Trustworthy Computing, Microsoft;
• Eric Grosse, VP for Security Engineering, Google;
• Melody Hildebrandt, Global head of cyber security, Palantir;
• Alex Stamos, Chief Information Security Officer, Yahoo;
• Joe Sullivan, Chief Information Security Officer, Facebook.

In addition to the president, government speakers include:

• Lisa Monaco, National Security Council;
• Jeff Zients, National Economic Council;
• Administrator Maria Contreras-Sweet, U.S. Small Business Administration;
• Alejandro Mayorkas, Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
• Matt Olsen, Former Director, National Counterterrorism Center;
• Joseph Demarest, Federal Bureau of Investigation;
• Ed Lowery, U.S. Secret Service;
• Jamie Saunders, Director National Cyber Crime Unit, United Kingdom National Crime Agency;
• Bilal Sen, United Nations Office of Drug and Crime.

That’s a harbinger for the rest of the state, Esmael Adibi told CalWatchdog.com; he’s the director of the A. Gary Anderson Center for Economic Research at Chapman University. “The economic growth is in that area,” he said. “This is the growth of social media at Apple, Facebook, Google, Yahoo and other companies. It’s design and research in Northern California.”

But not even Northern California can contain all the tech. The Playa Vista area of Los Angeles also is burgeoning with new developments.

The Los Angeles Times reported that in January, “Yahoo Inc. is moving its Santa Monica operations to Playa Vista, joining the droves of major tech companies that have opened offices in the booming Westside neighborhood.

“The Sunnyvale, Calif., Internet company signed a long-term lease for about 130,000 square feet at the new Collective campus in Playa Vista. The move will bring at least 400 jobs from its current location, with space to accommodate growth.”

And Google Inc. “has spent nearly $120 million on 12 vacant acres next to a historic hangar where aviator Howard Hughes built his famous ‘Spruce Goose’ airplane in the Playa Vista neighborhood near Marina del Rey.

“Google is also expected to lease the Hughes hangar built in 1943. The 319,000-square-foot building … could be home to as many as 6,000 well-paid, highly educated workers.”

Manufacturing

Adibi said this is a major difference from the high-tech economy of decades past, which centered on manufacturing. But that sector has declined as aerospace jobs have moved to other states. And as Apple and other companies moved manufacturing mostly overseas.

Apple ended its California manufacturing when it closed its Fremont plant in 1993. Now most Apple devices read, “Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China.”

Adibi said California’s factory employment dropped to 334,000 in 2014 from 664,000 in 1990. Most factory jobs are for the middle-class workers of the type who built the state, especially Los Angeles and its surrounding communities. Jobs include skilled work, such as for engineers; accountants and managers; and unskilled work for those on the assembly lines.

By contrast, the new tech jobs largely are for the “digerati,” the high-IQ, well paid workforce of the information economy.

New economy

The changeover to the new economy, which Apple’s phenomenal recent growth underscores, brings up the worm in the apple, as it were: the worry economists have over income inequality, which is something politicians are taking up.

The New York Times reported today on President Obama’s new budget proposal, a 10-year plan that “stabilizes the federal deficit but does not seek balance, instead focusing on policies to address income inequality as he adds nearly $6 trillion to the debt.”

A U.S. Census Bureau report found that, from 2012 to 2013, California was one of 15 states to see income inequality increase.

And a new study by the Economic Policy Institute found income growth in California from 1979 to 2012 rose 190 percent for the top 1 percent of income earners — but declined 6 percent for everybody else.

Such inequalities inevitably bring calls for higher taxes on the wealthy. But taxes for higher-income earners in California already have risen, with the top state income tax rate currently set at 13.3 percent, compared to 9.3 percent as recently as 2004 — a 43 percent increase.

California’s economic future is bifurcated by its gleaming high-tech companies climbing to ever-higher success — as the rest of the economy struggles and falls behind.

The new makeup of the U.S. Congress might break the log-jam for drought legislation. In addition to Republicans taking over the U.S. Senate and increasing their majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, McClintock just was appointed chairman of the House Subcommittee on Federal Lands of the Natural Resources Committee.

Before being elected to the House in 2008, in his two decades in the California Legislature he continually warned of the need for more water storage.

McClintock said the Feinstein bill only addressed the current drought and didn’t provide long-term relief. Now, he said, “The longer-term measures may take on a more West-wide perspective. So, stay tuned.”

The former chairman of his subcommittee, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, now chairs the full Natural Resources Committee and is a McClintock ally focused on the water situation in the entire Western United States.

Bipartisan

McClintock pointed out that any bill still must be bipartisan. In the Senate, 60 votes are needed to prevent a filibuster, but Republicans now hold only 54 seats. And 67 votes would be needed to override a potential veto by President Obama.

If a bipartisan bill lands on the president’s desk, McClintock said, “At that point, it’s his prerogative to either sign that legislation into law, or explain to the American people why he is standing in the way of desperately needed water measures.”

As to the GOP takeover of the Senate, McClintock said the president has gotten off to a bad start by “getting Lisa Murkowski mad a him.” From Alaska, she is the new Republican chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

Reported CNN, “On Sunday, President Barack Obama announced plans for the Interior Department to designate 12 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, including its coastal plains, for conservation. The possibility of such a move has been the cause of a lengthy battle between environmentalists and the energy industry for some time.”

Murkowski branded the move a “stunning attack” on Alaska’s economy. “It’s clear this administration does not care about us, and sees us as nothing but a territory,” she said. The plan must be approved by Congress.

Bonds and dams

Last November, California voters passed Proposition 1. McClintock supported it, writing at the time, “This is a long way from a perfect measure, but it’s as good as it gets in California these days: a $7.5 billion water bond that spends $2.7 billion for new water storage.  If that sounds breathtakingly underwhelming, remember that’s $2.7 billion more than the multi-billions of dollars of water bonds that we’ve spent in recent years.”

In the interview, he said he’s been having discussions about how Prop. 1 will interface with federal actions. He’s waiting to see exactly what will be funded by the state measure before working on federal programs.

“Speaking for myself,” he said, “I would like to see streamlined, one-stop permitting for new dam construction. And a prohibition against these massive, pulse-flow releases of water from our dams to adjust the water temperature for the fish, at a time when we’re at a record drought.”

In an article in the Wall Street Journal last March, McClintock described the problem as he saw it:

“Government officials who are entrusted with the careful management of our water squandered it in less than three weeks to nudge baby salmon toward the Pacific Ocean (to which they swim anyway) and to keep the river at just the right temperature for the fish by flushing the colder water stored in the reservoirs.

“These water releases are so enormous they are called ‘pulse flows.’ They generate such swift currents that local officials issue safety advisories to exercise extreme caution when on or near the rivers. While some of the water can be recaptured downstream, most is lost to the ocean.”

In the interview, he summarized, “Generally, droughts are nature’s fault, but water shortages are our fault. We haven’t built a major water storage facility in California since 1979. So we’re not going to solve our water shortage until we build more dams. And we’re not going to build more dams until we overhaul the radical environmental  laws that have made their construction impossible.”

Public lands

McClintock also is concerned about what he called maintaining “public access to public lands.” Specifically, he opposes President Obama’s recent unilateral designation of national monuments in California areas formerly more open to the public.

As CalWatchdog.com reported last October, the president came to our state to designate “half of the Angeles National Forest a national monument at the behest of Rep. Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park. … Young people and families use the forest for a cheap recreation place instead driving down to the beach. But environmentalists want forest access limited.  The forest attracts 32 million visitors each year, more than Yosemite or Yellowstone national parks.”

McClintock said he takes his philosophy of public lands from Gifford Pinchot, the founder of the National Forest Service. He cited Pinchot’s maxim, “The greatest good for the greatest number in the long run.”

“I think that that maxim is going to apply in the subcommittee to all matters pertaining to public lands. We need to preserve them for future generations. But that doesn’t mean closing them to the current generation,” McClintock said.

This is setting up a clash with the president and some of the more ardent environmentalists. McClintock said the president is claiming his authority to designate national monuments from the Antiquities Act of 1906.

This is confirmed by the White House website, which claimed, “First exercised by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 to designate Devils Tower National Monument in Wyoming, the authority of the Antiquities Act has been used by 16 presidents since 1906 to protect unique natural and historic features in America, such as the Grand Canyon, the Statue of Liberty and Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients.”

But according to McClintock, the 1906 act was “an emergency power to protect small archaeological sites from looting. It’s been used over the years to the point that this president is attempting to use it to place millions of acres off limits for virtually any human activity.”

The actual wording of the act, 16 USC 431-433, reads:

“That any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure, or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall, upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

“Sec. 2. That the President of the United States is hereby authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments.”

Jobs

McClintock also is concerned about the jobs of the Californians who work in or near the areas that could be restricted. Despite an improving jobs picture, California’s unemployment rate remains higher than the national average. He pointed to the Lake Berryessa Chamber of Commerce’s opposition to its area being designated a national monument, something sought by environmentalist groups.

The chamber itself explained on its website:

“At its regular monthly meeting on January 12, 2015, the Board of Directors of the Lake Berryessa Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose the creation of a so-called Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument (BSMNM). The Board’s primary concern was the potential negative impact of the designation on Lake Berryessa and its business and residential communities.”

McClintock maintained that environmental concerns and public access to public lands both can be met. “So the people are speaking very loudly and clearly,” he said. “Their president, unfortunately, at the moment isn’t listening. Congress, however, is.”

But it’s not surprising President Obama discussed this problem in last night’s State of the Union Address. His solution has three parts:

1. Raise taxes on the wealthy — that is, investors. Which would mean less investment in business and jobs creation.

2. Trickle a little back to the middle class.

3. Increase government.

Meanwhile, in California, The Los Angeles Times reported:

The United States has seen a remarkable turnaround in manufacturing employment since the economy bottomed out five years ago — but California hasn’t.

The state has been among the slowest to recover jobs in an industry long viewed as a bastion of middle-class opportunity.

Since February 2010, U.S. manufacturing employment has increased at a rate of 6.7%, with some Midwestern and Southern states such as Indiana and South Carolina seeing gains of 15% or more. By contrast, California manufacturing has grown at about 1% over the same period.

Manufacturing jobs are good, middle-class jobs, for both skilled and unskilled folks. But we’re not getting them here.

High costs

The Times quotes Jordan Levine, director of research at Beacon Economics in Los Angeles: “It comes down to housing costs and the costs of doing business in California overall.”

An obvious culprit is AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which places immense new burdens on businesses. It also just increased gas prices for  everybody beginning Jan. 1.

The price increase is hidden because of the global and national declines in oil and gas prices. But compare these national prices today from GasBuddy.com:

Lubbock, TX: $1.70
Colorado Springs, CO: $1.73
Kansas City, MO: $1.75
Detroit, MI: $1.83
Gary, IN: $1.84
Birmingham, AL: $1.94
Orange County, CA: $2.49
Los Angeles, CA: $2.51
Bakersfield, CA: $2.60
San Francisco, CA: $2.71
Honolulu, HI: $3.15

California drivers obviously are being ripped off big time by their own government. Like Texas, California also is a major oil-producing and -refining state. So why does a gallon of petrol cost a dollar more in San Fran than Lubbock?

The high cost of gas also hurts most the poor and middle class who have long commutes — something itself often caused by the high cost of housing. A worker making $50,000 in L.A. often has to live out in Riverside just to pay the rent, forcing a long commute at high gas prices.

But the president, to be echoed by most California Democrats, insists the real problem is that rich investors aren’t taxed enough.

More than a million Californians benefitted from federally subsidized health insurance in 2014 through the nation’s health care law. But now the law is about to give many of them a migraine. 

It’s tax season, and for the first time Obamacare is showing up on tax forms. And it’s leading to confusion and angst over new rules and their impact on taxpayers’ pocketbooks. 

That’s because taxpayers must now reconcile the subsidy they received with the income they estimated they would earn last year. In addition, people who ignored the Affordable Care Act’s requirement to obtain health insurance in 2014 now face a financial penalty levied by the Internal Revenue Service — unless they qualify for an exemption.

Meanwhile, rates continue to rise for many under the “Affordable” Care Act. CBS News — not a conservative site — reported:

a number of low-priced Obamacare plans will raise their rates in 2015, making those options less affordable. On top of that, penalties for failing to secure a health-insurance plan will rise steeply next year, which could take a big bite out of some families’ pocketbooks.

“The penalty is meant to incentivize people to get coverage,” said senior analyst Laura Adams of InsuranceQuotes.com. “This year, I think a lot of people are going to be in for a shock”….

The financial penalty for skipping out on health coverage will more than triple to $325 per person in 2015, or 2 percent of income, depending on whichever is higher. Children will be fined at half the adult rate, or $162.50 for those under 18 years old.

That’s right. The Grim Reaper even comes for kids.