By Steven Greenhut

This year’s Rose Parade in Pasadena, California featured the Department of Defense’s “Freedom Isn’t Free” float. While nothing is close to free when DOD is involved—the B-2 bomber that made a fly-by as parade-goers cheered cost more than twice its weight in gold—the rose- and carnation-covered replica of the Korean War Veterans Memorial got me thinking about the state of America’s freedoms as we ring in the New Year.

The news isn’t particularly encouraging. Maintaining a free society involves more than standing up, militarily, to un-free ones. Many areas of our society are disturbingly authoritarian, and the voting public seems less concerned about freedom issues and more interested in the “free” stuff politicians promise them. Government grows at an alarming rate regardless of which party is in power.

Many Americans are facing higher taxes after Republicans caved in to the administration’s bogus plan to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff. The federal government is indeed a mess. But I’m most concerned about the future of my home state of California, given that one party—the party that believes that “more government” is the answer to every question—has total dominance in the political system.

Democratic leaders in Sacramento already are taking aim at Proposition 13, as they eye removing tax protections from business-property owners and making it easier for localities to raise property taxes for myriad purposes. Taxation is a freedom issue in that the more government takes from me, the longer I have to work to serve the needs of the bureaucracy.

But your wallets are not the only thing endangered when California’s Legislature is in session. Legislators will ramp up their efforts to regulate everything in sight that isn’t already regulated. The sheer volume of legislation is staggering. Former radio talk-show host Cameron Jackson found that California legislators have passed 12,097 laws since 1993 and another 10,224 resolutions. More than 800 new laws went into effect in California beginning January 1.

Cumulative effect

Not every new law is an assault on freedom, but the cumulative effect can be daunting. Try starting a business or building something anywhere in this state and you’ll quickly learn the high cost of our supposed freedoms—it’s really expensive, as you pay the taxes, conform to the endless regulations, and beg for the approval of multiple legislative bodies and bureaucracies.

Most of this year’s new laws are ridiculous, unneeded, and annoying.

Legislators, for instance, banned the open carrying of unloaded long guns after gun-rights activists staged “open carry” protests to demonstrate their Second Amendment rights. The Legislature certainly showed them! A new law quadruples fines for junk dealers who buy copper stolen from utilities. California parents must now receive information from a government-approved health provider before choosing to exempt their kids from mandated immunizations.

There are new rules on health-care providers mandating that they provide additional medical services, a law that allows certain illegal immigrants to get driver’s licenses, and a ban on therapists who provide a therapy that is supposed to cure patients of homosexuality. As you can see, there is no area of life so personal that the state Legislature won’t intervene.

Just as California’s real-estate market is rebounding, emerging from a busting housing bubble caused in large part by government-mandated lending- and land-use practices, we have a package of laws granting homeowners new “rights” not to be foreclosed upon—something that will slow down the natural market-oriented process of foreclosure and resale, and basically enrich lawyers.

Legislators can now get special vanity license plates, but you can no longer use dogs to hunt bear, as if that was ever a big issue. A few measures actually increase, albeit modestly, your freedoms, such as a bill that allows Californians to sell food products out of their home kitchens, although even this good law adds government oversight to the process.

Republicans didn’t have much luck controlling government’s growth, but they did pass a law that authorizes a privately funded statute of Ronald Reagan to be erected at the Capitol. If you can’t limit government, you might as well remind us of a politician who, rhetorically at least, was in favor of that seemingly outmoded concept.

The result of this endless sea of legislation is a society mired in bureaucracy, taxed to the hilt and where the citizenry always is at risk for violating an incomprehensible and miles-deep list of regulations and rules. As a friend has noted, we have morphed from a nation of laws to a nation of rules, enforced by a well-paid group of officials who continually lobby for more protections and benefits for themselves.

Freedom certainly isn’t free. It takes a tireless commitment to protect it from encroaching government. I can do with a few less parade floats and a lot more commitment from Americans to defend our founding principles in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

By John Hrabe

The world didn’t end in 2012, but several municipalities did.

Four California cities, Stockton, Atwater, San Bernardino and Mammoth Lakes, declared bankruptcy this year. One financial expert described the problem as “spreading like a disease.” Of course, these bankruptcies were caused, in part, by wasteful government spending.

Don’t expect the threat of municipal bankruptcy to rain on every city’s parade.

Twenty-seven percent of the floats in next week’s 124th Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade will be sponsored by a government agency. In many cases, taxpayers directly foot the bill to design and build these elaborate floats. Even responsible cities that rely on donations and corporate sponsorships rack up thousands of dollars in indirect taxpayer expenses.

In addition to two public universities, the 2013 Rose Parade will feature floats from the cities of Alhambra, Burbank, Downey, Glendale, La Canada-Flintridge, Los Angeles, San Gabriel and South Pasadena. The long tradition of city-sponsored parade floats takes all year and thousands of dollars to prepare for just a few seconds of global publicity.

“The Rose Parade’s elaborate floats have come a long way since the Tournament’s early days,” the Rose Parade boasts on its website. “Today, float building is a multi-million dollar business and float construction begins just after the previous year’s Parade is over.”

Taxpayers pay for award-winning floats

The city of Glendale started planning for the 2013 parade in March, when the city council approved a $100,000 contract with the award-winning Phoenix Decorating Company to design and build the city’s 2013 float. Appropriately themed, “Living the Good Life,” the city fronted the cash with the hope that public donations and corporate sponsorships would backfill the public treasury. By late July, city staff had secured just $60,000 in sponsorships.

Glendale, like so many cities, was seeking just a few minutes of international publicity.

“If you ever tried to spot the Glendale Rose Parade float on television on New Year’s Day, you know you had to stay glued to your set and never blink,” wrote Glendale News Press columnist Ron Kaye. “You only get a passing glance.”

Just a few miles away, a unanimous Alhambra city council approved a $95,000 contract with the Alhambra Chamber of Commerce to oversee the construction and decoration of the 2013 float, according to council minutes.

While Glendale and Alhambra held public council votes on their Rose Parade floats, other cities provided contributions toward float building through the city’s parks and recreation department. This fiscal year, the city of Burbank allocated $54,720 in a direct cash contribution for the parade from its Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. Drew Sugars, Burbank’s public information officer, is quick to point out that this year’s contribution is about 10 percent less than last year’s. Just two years ago, Burbank allocated $71,310 in direct taxpayer funds for the city’s float.

In-kind expenses: “A bit more complicated”

“Tracking in-kind costs can be a bit more complicated,” Sugars explained.

According to a 2011 city memo, which Sugars provided to CalWatchdog.com, the city’s cash contribution is supplemented by other city expenses for “essential staffing, storage, transportation, related mechanical expenses and miscellaneous expenses.” For example, city employees devoted staff time to train parade volunteers in how to operate a forklift. Additionally, it cost the city $55,000 to warehouse the float. In the 2010-11 fiscal year, the city estimated its “total cost of support” for the Burbank Tournament of Roses Association was $157,374.12.

City staff concluded that the bill was too much for taxpayers to bear.

“As the PRCS Department priorities core programs and services during the FY 2011-2012 Budget process, it recommends the elimination of the City’s $60,800 cash contribution to BTORA,” the city memo stated. Yet, the council declined to follow staff’s recommendation.

Even if some cities wanted to reduce their parade subsidies, not all indirect city subsidies are easily rescinded. In 1995, the city of Downey entered into a 25-year lease agreement with the Downey Rose Float Association. The city provided this benefit, according to the contract, for nothing more than “the favorable publicity from being represented in the annual Rose Parade.”

South Pasadena Float Association: Tax troubles

The cities’ direct and indirect contribution to these non-profit organizations often comes with minimal oversight or accountability. According to the IRS, the South Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association had its federal tax exemption “automatically revoked for its failure to file a Form 990-series return or notice for three consecutive years.”

Ted Shaw, president of the South Pasadena Tournament of Roses Association, said that he was working with the IRS to retroactively correct the organization’s filing requirements.

“We have reapplied to the IRS with a retro date to May 11th and have been advised once the fees are paid there will be no problem,” Shaw told CalWatchdog.com. “We are a small solely volunteer organization committed to building a float for our community once a year.”

Yet, the delinquent federal tax return didn’t stop the city from making its annual contribution. Sally Kilby, the city clerk of South Pasadena, said the city contributed $14,500 in business improvement tax funds for the annual Rose Parade float.

“The funds do not come from the General Fund (city), but from business improvement tax funds,” Kilby said. “These monies are collected from the business license tax on all businesses.”

Thousands of dollars: For what?

While South Pasadena dedicates business improvement taxes toward parade expenses, not all small businesses see an improvement in their bottom line from the parade.

“Amber Szabo, manager of the Old Pasadena store Lather, which specializes in skin and beauty supplies, said the store always closes for the Rose Parade day, as do many others on the route,” the Los Angeles Times reported last January.

Businesses may not benefit, but city officials do. San Gabriel Mayor Kevin Sawkins, who also chairs the city’s centennial committee, will be one of the float’s six lucky riders. According to the Los Angeles Times’ Rosanna Xia, “The float, which will cost an estimated $155,000 and is being funded by donations from local businesses and residents, captures the city’s historic roots as well as its evolution.”

Rose Parade: History of taxpayer subsidies    

Taxpayers may grumble, but city subsidies are a founding principle of the Rose Parade, which began as a publicity stunt for California cities.

“Back in 1890, the city of Pasadena wanted to showcase how their winter was soooo much better than yours,” reports Cracked.com. “And in 1890, there were only two ways to accomplish that: by commissioning an artist to paint scenes of local wintertime fun and then just nonchalantly leaving the paintings all around the country, or by holding a festival. Pasadena went with the second one.”

The Los Angeles International Airport, the agency representing the city of Los Angeles in this year’s parade, told the Los Angeles Daily News that “no taxpayer funds were used to pay for the float.” In 2011, the City of La Canada-Flintridge provided at least $10,000 in taxpayer funds to the city’s non-profit float association. However, current year expenses were unavailable.