One statistic, from the Census Bureau, shows that once the cost of living is included, California has the highest poverty rate in the U.S., with nearly one in four residents stuggling from paycheck to paycheck — if they even have a job.

The second stat, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows that about 19 percent of Californians who want to work full time can’t find such jobs. Only Nevada has a worse rate.

One or both of these numbers were cited specifically or alluded to in Cal Watchdog stories or stories written by Cal Watchdog contributors or alums repeatedly throughout 2013.

Here’s one from Katy Grimes back in March. Here’s another from Katy in June. Here’s one from me a couple of months back.

CA’s mass poverty, underemployment finally judged to be news

So guess who’s decided to start pointing out that the allegedly Golden State has the nation’s highest level of poverty and nearly a fifth of its workers unemployed or underemployed?

Why, it’s the Sacramento Bee’s Dan Walters — as mainstream as it gets. Over the weekend, his column noted that California has “the nation’s highest level of poverty and nearly a fifth of its workers unemployed or underemployed.”

This came after a Walters’ column three weeks ago that had this observation:

“California’s official poverty rate of 16.5 percent is somewhat higher than the national rate of 15.1 percent, but under an alternative Census Bureau method of calculating poverty that includes cost of living, our poverty rate soars to – by far – the highest rate of any state. Nearly a quarter of Californians, 23.8 percent, live in poverty.

“This is, or should be, a matter of shame, especially for politicians who profess to represent society’s underdogs but who enact policies that raise their struggling constituents’ cost of living, or inhibit the creation of jobs that would lift poor Californians out of poverty.”

Welcome to the bandwagon, Dan.

The other Kool-Aid dispensers probably won’t come around

Now it’s time to wait for George Skelton, Dan Morain and the other dispensers of the Sacramento political-media establishment’s conventional wisdom to stop selling the Kool-Aid about the Golden State’s economic rebound.

But don’t hold your breath. Skelton, remember, is the guy who famously declared he didn’t know anyone who didn’t think the governor should break his promise and just raise taxes.

That remains the second-most telling opinion piece ever about the Sacramento media.

The first will never be topped. It was the childish tantrum of a Sacramento Bee editorial than ran after voters rejected higher taxes in the May 2009 special election. Its unforgettable opening:

“Good morning, California voters. Do you feel better, now that you’ve gotten that out of your system?

“You wanted to show the state’s politicians just how mad you are at them. And you did. Boy, did you ever.

“Proposition 1A with its taxes and its spending limit? Too much of one and not enough of the other, you said (or was it the other way around), and voted it down. Never mind that the taxes go into effect anyway. You showed ’em.”

This contempt for Californians is unlike anything I have seen from any newspaper. Normally it’s better hidden by the Skeltons and Morains of the world. They never notice the gap between dominant Dems’ noble rhetoric and what Dems use their power to do. And when voters figure it out, they react with vicious condescension.

Way to go, guys — good luck with the MSNBC interviews! You’ll fit right in.

By Chris Reed

The Sacramento Bee’s editorial Friday lambasting House Republicans for opposing using borrowed federal money to build California’s bullet train was noteworthy for its tone. The Bee editorial board seems to be under the deluded impression that project advocates have the moral high ground.

“The Government Accountability Office injected a sense of realism into the high-speed rail debate, detailing in its March 28 report just how large infrastructure projects of this kind work. But the naysayers led by House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, and Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock, don’t seem to be listening. …

“A major issue, it turns out, is post-2010 congressional opposition. As the GAO notes, the Obama administration, as well as the governor, Legislature and voters of California, has committed funding to the project. But sustained congressional support for additional funds is ‘one of the biggest challenges to completing this project.’

“McCarthy was quick to prove the point. As soon as the report came out, he issued a statement that he was ‘developing legislation to stop more hard-earned taxpayer dollars from being wasted on California high-speed rail.’ Ditto for Denham.

“You have to wonder if they would have supported the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 that authorized $25 billion over 10 years to construct the interstate highway system. You have to wonder, too, if they would have supported the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 authorizing bonds and grants of land to railroad companies to construct a transcontinental railroad.”

The Bee’s stunningly selective memory

You have to wonder if the Bee remembers that the bullet train was sold to state voters in 2008 with lies about cost, ridership, jobs created, environmental benefits — and that’s only for starters.

You have to wonder if the Bee remembers that the California High-Speed Rail Authority has never been able to comply with the state law ratified by voters in 2008 that requires a business plan that isn’t dependent on taxpayer subsidies to attract private investment. This has led the rail authority to stop even trying to get private investors — another lie to voters.

You have to wonder if the Bee remembers all the evidence that the bullet train will never meet another requirement of the 2008 state law: that the bullet train make it from downtown L.A. to downtown San Francisco in two hours and 40 minutes — another lie to voters.

If the Bee editorial board actually thinks the bullet train holds the moral high ground, that is shocking. In its own way, Friday’s editorial is as childish as the L.A. Times’ 2011 editorial that invoked “The Little Engine That Could” to describe the LAT editorial board’s optimism the project could be built.