The firestorm over a recent New York Times 

The revelations came via the discovery phase of a lawsuit targeting Harvard for allegedly having de facto quotas meant to limit Asian-Americans to about 20 percent of incoming freshman classes – a percentage that has held relatively firm for decades. Internal documents appeared to confirm that low marks for alleged personality traits reduced how many Asian-Americans would have been accepted by about half. Several other Ivy League schools have also been accused of similar practices.

University of California campuses wouldn’t seem likely to face such potential headaches. Proposition 209, passed in 1996, bans the use of race as a consideration in college admissions and other state government functions. Some of UC’s most elite campuses – at Berkeley, Irvine and San Diego – have student bodies that are more than 40 percent Asian-American.

But when it comes to UCLA, where 32 percent of students are Asian-American, according to collegedata.com, the school could face embarrassment if its internal admissions processes were exposed by a lawsuit as happened with Harvard. That’s because there’s a long paper trail showing UCLA employed the same sort of subjective evaluations of applicants as Harvard.

In 2006, responding to disappointingly low enrollment numbers for African-Americans, UCLA officials adopted a “holistic” approach that they said represented the “most dramatic” changes in admissions in years – an approach they explicitly compared to those seen in Ivy League schools. This approach looked not just at grades and test scores but at life circumstances.

But even as the change was introduced, Ward Conerly – the African-American former UC regent who championed Proposition 209 – ridiculed the idea that the policy would be “fairer” to all groups, as acting Chancellor Norman Abrams then said.

Two years later, UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose resigned from the university’s undergraduate admissions committee, alleging it had become obvious that UCLA was using the latitude provided by subjective assessments of applicants to favor African-Americans over others. Groseclose challenged UCLA’s assertion that it was using socioeconomic backgrounds – not race – in evaluating what obstacles that applicants had overcome. He noted that after the UCLA policy change, admissions of students from Vietnamese-American families – among the poorer subsets of Asian-Americans – had actually fallen.

In defending its “holistic” approach, UCLA officials have pushed back, then and now, saying critics had agendas and were cherry-picking statistics.

Ex-UCLA professor: Rich black applicants favored over poor Asians

But in April 2014, soon after leaving UCLA for George Mason University, Groseclose published “Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA.” It cited internal documents that showed that an applicant from a wealthy African-American family had a likelihood of admission that was “almost double that of a poor Asian, even when the two applicants have identical grades, SAT scores and other factors.”

The book was published amid intense debate in the California Legislature over Senate Constitutional Amendment 5, which would have asked state voters to repeal part of Proposition 209 to allow for race to be considered in college admissions. It passed the state Senate in January 2014, with Lieu – then a state senator – among the yes votes.

But the constitutional amendment was never voted on in the Assembly. By May 2014, it had been scrapped after an intense backlash from Chinese-Americans who believed it would suppress Asian-American enrollment in UC’s most elite campuses.

The backlash was strongly criticized by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, which urged a continuation of traditional Asian-American support for affirmative-action-type programs. But then-Rosemead Councilwoman Polly Low, a leader of the Chinese American Elected Officials Association, told the Los Angeles Times that many in the local Chinese community were incensed with SCA5. “I have never seen so many people so mad,” she said.

L.A. County under fire for automatic license suspensions for unpaid fines

Good morning. Happy Hump Day.  

Civil rights attorneys filed suit on Tuesday in the Los Angeles Superior Court to block the practice of automatic driver’s license suspensions for unpaid fines, reports the Los Angeles Times.

This is something CalWatchdog has covered extensively, as civil rights groups in Northern California have done the same thing with modest success. 

In other news:

• “With the deadline to pass bills weeks away, California’s housing director is traveling throughout the state seeking to bolster Gov. Jerry Brown’s fast-track housing plan,” writes The Orange County Register.
• The latest fundraising numbers for legislative races are in, showing who is best suited for Election Day, reports The Sacramento Bee.
• UCLA coaches again top the list of highest paid public employees in the state, with football head coach Jim Mora topping the list with $3.5 million in income last year. Capital Public Radio has more.  
• “Californians used 21 percent less water in June than they did in 2013. That wasn’t as much savings as last month or even last year, but state water regulators say they expected conservation to dip. It’s the first month after statewide mandates were eased. Local water agencies now set conservation standards based on supply. Agencies must self-certify that they can provide water for several years. Regulators call it a ‘stress-test,'” reports Capital Public Radio. 

Assembly:

• Next floor session on Thursday. Several hearings today, including a marathon Appropriations hearing.

Senate:

• Next floor session on Thursday. Several hearings today. 

Gov. Brown: 

• Speaking in San Diego at a union convention. 

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @LeahDurantLaw

At San Diego State and UCLA, the responses to an aggressive gambit by conservative activist David Horowitz were noticeably different. Horowitz distributed a poster that can be filled out to identify supporters of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, which targets Israel, as “pro-Palestinian terrorists.” Horowitz rejects the idea that this is an extreme tactic, saying campus groups which back BDS also support Hamas, which is officially recognized by the State Department as a terrorist group.

When seven San Diego State students were so identified with the inflammatory posters in April, San Diego State University President Elliot Hirshman and his administration met with upset students. The subsequent statement issued by the university said a committee would review university policies with the goal of “balancing freedom of expression and protection from harassment.” But the statement alluded to the posters, however hateful they may be, as falling under the First Amendment — political speech with “protected status.”

This led to a protest in which dozens of students surrounded a car that Hirschman was in and wouldn’t let it leave. After an hour, Hirschman got out and spoke with the students. But they remain unsatisfied and have called for the SDSU president to resign. He also faces faculty criticism.

UCLA warned of legal action against Horowitz

At UCLA, the fliers — which named faculty members as well as students — triggered a much stronger response. In an email to campus students, faculty and employees, Jerry Kang, vice chancellor for equity, diversity and inclusion, said the tactics “amounts to a focused, personalized intimidation that threatens specific members of our Bruin community,” Kang said in the email.

The Daily Bruin reported that Kang said “UCLA will enforce university policies on harassment and intimidation by pursuing legal action against Horowitz.”

Horowitz responded by threatening to sue Kang for defamation. He also accused UCLA of double standards and hypocrisy — a view also voiced by high-profile UCLA Professor Judea Pearl, who said even the word Israel “has been shunned by the UC administration like leprosy.”

Now it’s UC Irvine’s turn for unrest.

On May 18, about 50 protesters disrupted the screening of “Beneath the Helmet,” a documentary about Israel soldiers, an event that was to include a discussion between students and former Israel soldiers. After protesters blocked exits, UCI police intervened and led those in the screening room to safety amid what witnesses described as a hail of profanity and anti-Israel chants.

UC Irvine Chancellor Howard Gillman emailed students, faculty and employees the next day, saying the protesters “crossed the line of civility.”

UC Irvine was the scene of perhaps the best-known U.S. campus protest against Israel. In February 2010, 11 UC Irvine and UC Riverside students repeatedly disrupted a speech by Michael Oren, then Israel’s ambassador to the U.S.  In 2011, 10 of the students were found guilty of misdemeanor counts of organized disruption of the event. They were ordered to do 56 hours of community service and serve three years of “informal probation.”

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas’ decision to pursue criminal charges over and above the mild discipline the students faced on campus was sharply criticized by Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine’s law school. He said it was “unnecessarily divisive.”

This week, the University of California issued a new open access policy that gives anyone in the world free access to scholarly articles authored by UC employees. That means clinical faculty, lecturers, staff researchers, postdoctoral scholars, graduate students and librarians at the system’s 10 campuses and numerous research labs will finally be allowed to share their work with the public.

“With the Presidential Open Access Policy’s inclusion of scholarly articles authored by a wide range of UC researchers, the University affirms its mission as a forward-looking public research institution in service to the people of California and to scholars around the world,” said Susan Carlson, the University of California’s vice-provost for academic personnel and programs.

UC Academic Senate paved way for open access

The latest UC decree builds on an open access policy previously-adopted by the UC Academic Senate, which represents more than 8,000 faculty members at all 10 UC campuses. In 2013, UC faculty members granted the public access to their research, but lacked the authority to require open access for work of non-faculty members.

“The Faculty of the University of California is committed to disseminating its research and scholarship as widely as possible,” states the Open Access Policy for the Academic Senate of the University of California, which was first passed in the summer of 2013. “In particular, as part of a public university system, the Faculty is dedicated to making its scholarship available to the people of California and the world.”

The new UC open access policy covers “all employees and students at the University of California campuses, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, the UC Medical Centers, the Office of the President, and all auxiliary University locations not already covered by the Academic Senate Open Access Policy.” As a result of the change, UC says that its open access publishing policies now “cover more authors than any other institutional OA policy to date.”

“Until now, tenure-track faculty have had the privilege of passing such policies to govern themselves, but at most universities, such faculty are a fraction of the people who do research and publish articles,” said UCLA professor Christopher Kelty, who chaired the Presidential Open Access Policy Task Force. “Extending the same rights to those who aren’t part of a faculty governance system is an important and difficult step – I’m thrilled we have accomplished it.”

Walled content of academic journals

Previously, research produced by university employees was commonly walled off from the public in academic journals that routinely charge high subscription fees to access material. The old model empowered publications, which could dictate terms and conditions to professors and researchers in desperate need to “publish or perish.”

Advocates for open access say that old policy stifled innovation and academic research.

“Students have already recognized that significant academic contributions come from all corners of our university,” said Meredith Niles, a recent Ph.D. graduate from UC Davis who was active in a graduate student association involved in crafting the new policy. “Now UC has taken the next step to affirm what graduate students have already demonstrated: a strong desire to make all scholarly research, regardless of its source, openly available to all members of society.”

UC authors will continue to retain legal control over their work and will not be required to publish in open access journals. Instead, the new policy merely commits UC employees to submit a copy of their work to a free digital database maintained by the university. The new policy, which takes effect for scholarly articles published after October 19, 2015, also does not apply to books, textbooks or student theses.

According to UC officials, the system is responsible for 2 percent of the world’s total research publications.

UC slow to act on new technology

The University of California’s hasn’t always been quick to embrace new technology. Last year, the University of California initially banned reimbursements for travel expenses incurred with sharing services, such as Uber, Lyft and Airbnb. That led to a public outcry with some Democratic politicians calling for the UC system to modernize its travel policies.

“Sharing economy companies offer consumers more choices at often less cost than comparable services offered by traditional vendors,” Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a member of the UC Board of Regents, wrote at the time. “Prohibiting UC employees from using services that cost less is simply bad for the university’s bottom line.”

Eventually, the UC system backed away from its ban. This year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation authored by Asm. Ling Ling Chang that guarantees state workers’ ability to use sharing economy services on state business.

How much? More than the Gross Domestic Product of 100 countries, according to new data published by the State Controller’s office. In 2014, more than 650,000 state employees earned a total of $32 billion in wages and benefits.

As part of her ongoing effort to open up state government’s books, State Controller Betty Yee released the payroll figures in her latest update to the “Government Compensation in California” website. The open government portal provides self-reported payroll data for 240,736 positions in 150 state departments, 275,257 positions in 10 University of California institutions and the UC president’s office; 113,857 positions in 23 California State University institutions and the CSU chancellor’s office; and 20,316 positions in 58 Superior Courts.

The staggering amount of payroll data is matched by generous salaries and benefits provided to the top echelon of employees. Nine hundred sixty-nine state employees earned more than the President of the United States – with thousands more earning more than a quarter million dollars per year.

Highest Average Salaries: Institute for Regenerative Medicine, legislative staff

Topping the list of state agencies with the highest average salary is California’s stem cell agency. The average salary for employees of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) is $117,627 per year. That’s 21 percent more than the salaries of state lawmakers, who earn $97,197 per year.

Despite having the highest average salary for any state agency, the stem cell agency boasts that it is “a good steward of the people’s money.”

“CIRM is a good steward of the people’s money – independent reviewers agree that we are lean, well-managed and effective,” the agency claims on its website. “We are delivering economic results for Californians – both at the state level, and in dozens of communities in every part of the state.”

After the state’s stem cell agency, the only other state agencies with average salaries in six-figures are employees of the State Supreme Court, Sierra County Superior Court and California Court of Appeals, according to the State Controller’s database.

Lowest paid employees: Conservation agency, commissions on disability and women

Progressive Democrats have near universal control over state government, but you wouldn’t know it from the average pay of some state agencies.

The lowest paid average workers represented agencies focused on the environment, women and people with disabilities. According to the state’s 2014 payroll data, the average salary for the 11 state employees at the California Commission on Disability Access was just $15,213 per year, slightly more than the $14,494 average salary paid to the four employees at the Commission on the Status of Women.

The small number of employees arguably skews the data. However, that’s not a factor for the 3,500 employees of the California Conservation Corps, who earned an average wage of just $12,973 per year. Easily one of the most efficient state agencies, the department responsible for “protecting and restoring California’s environment and responding to disasters” paid out less than $2,000 per year in average retirement and health care costs per employee.

UC, CalPERS top list of highest paid employees

In contrast to workers at the California Conservation Corps, coaches at state universities earned big bucks. Last year, the Top 10 state employees all earned more than $1.6 million each. This millionaires club was dominated by coaches at the UC campuses.

As the Los Angeles Times noted last month, “UCLA head football coach Jim Mora earned $3.5 million in 2014, followed by basketball head coach Steve Alford at $2.7 million. Khalil Tabsh, an obstetrician at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, earned $2.3 million and Ronald Busuttil, a transplant surgeon at the Westwood campus, earned $2.2 million.” In all, 28 UC employees earned more than $1 million in total compensation.

Excluding employees of the UC system, the highest salaries were paid out to investment officers with the state’s retirement systems. CalPERS’ chief investment officer took home nearly $740,000 in 2015 — 40 times more than an employee earning the state’s $9 per hour minimum wage. To put the compensation for CalPERS’ highest-paid employee into perspective, it would take just 10 days to match the annual salary for the state’s in-home support service workers, who provide care and support for the elderly and people with disabilities.

The Top 10 highest-paid state employees, excluding the University of California system, are:

1. Chief Investment Officer of California Public Employees’ Retirement System: $739,594
2. Senior Investment Officer, California Public Employees’ Retirement System: $651,444
3. Senior Investment Officer, California Public Employees’ Retirement System: $650,694
4. Dentist, Department of Developmental Services: $628,218
5. Chief Physician and Surgeon, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation: $563,572
6. Chief Investment Officer, California State Teachers’ Retirement System: $562,528
7. Physician and Surgeon, Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation: $559,297
8. President and CEO, State Compensation Insurance Fund: $549,254
9. Chief Executive Officer, State Teachers’ Retirement System: $534,613
10. Senior Investment Officer, Public Employees’ Retirement System: $522,556

California’s state payroll data has been viewed more than 8 million times since disclosure began in 2010. The controller’s office will provide more updates later this year, which will include more state and local agencies.

 Surprise results

The results of the UCLA study, “Free to Choose: Promoting Conservation by Relaxing Outdoor Water Restrictions,” were surprising to the researchers.

The study, sponsored by the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzed a sizable statistical sample: 20,000 water customers measured by 1.9 million daily meter readings during different hours of the day to measure temperature and wind effects. The study was conducted in 2008 in an economic boom period and again in 2010 in a depressed period.

The amount of overwatering discovered wasn’t small: 20 to 25 percent of weekly consumption and 30 to 40 percent of peak water usage for the typical customer. The researchers call this wastage “rigidity penalties,” meaning that adhering to rigid outdoor watering schedules results in greater water usage than flexible conservation efforts.

In other words, most of the 35 percent state-ordered reductions in water usage in desert areas such as the Coachella Valley are likely to be offset by overwatering due to conservation efforts.

Assigned watering days ignores desert wind effects

Especially in desert climates, the researchers point out that strict adherence to an official watering schedule requires households to “ignore the conditions such as high wind events that reduce the efficiency of irrigation systems” (p. 3).  As anyone who has lived in the desert can attest, gusting winds and sand storms occur mainly in the summer months peaking in May.  Assigned watering days prevent customers shifting from watering on a windy day to a calm day.

How credible a study is this?  Well, the researchers first “cleaned” 15 percent of their data. Households were dropped from the study with ownership changes, vacant dwellings, significant water pipe leakage and seasonal vacation homes. The study also found it was unlikely that the threat of fines for watering on the wrong days was enough to get customers to comply with the watering schedule. The researchers selected the high desert of Nevada especially because of its uniform hot weather and sparse summer rainfall, which would have otherwise complicated their research findings.

The researchers found the outdoor watering policy in Reno was of “negligible magnitude” (p. 14) and had “no noteworthy residual policy effects” (p. 15), after controlling for frequency and pattern of watering.

“Free to Choose” works best for conservation

The researchers concluded that putting a cap on watering frequency was essential for curbing water consumption. But the “address-based assignment of specific watering days undermined conservation goals” (p. 19).

The implications of the UCLA study for public policy are:

“For policy-makers, our results suggest that adjusting existing OWRs (Outdoor Watering Restrictions) to allow for flexible watering patterns could produce substantial water savings at relatively low implementation costs. Moreover, as inefficiency penalties are highest at low frequencies, our findings also cast doubt on the effectiveness of policies that reduce the number of assigned days under progressively severe drought conditions. In such situations, a frequency reduction combined with a ‘free-to-choose’ policy is likely to promote greater conservation.”

On April 9, the San Diego County Water Authority called on the State Water Resources Control Board to change the formula of water use per person per day that is being used to set mandatory percentages of water reduction. SDCWA said that the state formula would penalize water districts like San Diego that have reduced water usage 12 percent since 1990 despite adding a population gain of 700,000.

Another implication of the UCLA study is that a one-size-fits-all drought policy may be symbolically fair but may not save any real water where the reductions are most targeted in desert resort and retirement communities. As Sacramento Bee journalist Dan Walters has pointed out, Gov. Brown often uses what he calls the principle of “subsidiarity” (home rule) very selectively.  In the case of drought policy, Brown has not adhered to free choice at all even though the UCLA study indicates it would be best for actual water conservation.

The lawsuit, filed in Boston federal court, was prompted by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2013 in a case involving the University of Texas’ admissions practices. The court didn’t invalidate the Texas system, but it sent the case back to lower courts with an admonition that race had to truly be only one of several factors in weighing close calls in admission decisions — not the crucial factor.

The Harvard lawsuit, launched by the Project on Fair Representation and the Students for Fair Admissions, targets the same practice that has drawn fire at UCLA and UC Berkeley: a “holistic” evaluation of applicants’ merits that considers how much they have had to overcome and their personal qualities, among other factors.

In his recent book, “Cheating: An Insider’s Report on the Use of Race in Admissions at UCLA,” UCLA political science professor Tim Groseclose found black students were three times as likely as white students and twice as likely as Asian students to gain admission under “holistic” grounds. Proposition 209 sponsor Ward Connerly, a former UC regent, has long charged that UCLA, UC Berkeley and other UC campuses manipulate admissions to get around the race-neutral requirement of his 1996 law.

The numbers in the Harvard case seem to suggest that an Asian student quota exists. Over the past 20 years, Asian-Americans have comprised 20 percent of the freshman class with little variation.  As the Project on Fair Admissions — sponsor of the Harvard suit  — notes, over the past 20 years, the number of high-performing Asian-American high school students has doubled.

But Harvard’s freshman admissions suggest quotas for all races. In recent years, blacks have made up around 12 percent of freshmen, Latinos around 13 percent and whites and decline to state students a little more than half.

The numbers for UC’s top schools also suggest a de facto quota system. At UCLA, Asian-Americans consistently make up one-third of freshmen; whites about 27 percent; Latinos about 20 percent; and blacks about 4 percent. At Berkeley, Asian-Americans consistently make up about 40 percent of freshmen; whites about 30 percent; Latinos about 12 percent; and blacks about 3 percent. (The UC numbers don’t add up to 100 percent because they don’t have racial breakdowns for international student admissions.)

Asian-American state lawmakers seem satisfied with this status quo and strongly opposed Latino and African-American lawmakers’ interest in weakening Proposition 209 last year. But Groseclose’s research found an interesting fact that could someday become a hot potato in California politics. “Holistic” admissions policies are supposed to weigh to a big degree on the disadvantages facing potential enrollees. Yet …

… race outweighs socioeconomic status, according to Groseclose. For instance, black applicants whose families had incomes exceeding $100,000 were about twice as likely to be accepted in round two [after holistic reviews] as Asian and white kids whose families make just $30,000 and had similar test scores, grades and essays.

While Harvard is a private institution, it receives tens of millions of dollars in federal funding with strings attached, making it vulnerable to lawsuits over admissions. Thus, virtually all U.S. universities are at risk of being sued over practices that appear discriminatory.

The Project on Fair Representation intends to sue other universities over what it sees as rigid racial quotas.

It’s interesting to note that incoming freshmen at Yale are also 20 percent Asian-American, as are those at Princeton.

In the most recent numbers from Stanford, Asian-Americans made up 23 percent of the undergraduate student body.

The first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on affirmative action in college admissions was the 1978 Bakke case, involving the University of California. More information on Bakke is here. The court found affirmative action to be constitutional — but not the use of racial quotas.

I wrote about this angle in the U-T San Diego today:

“University of California-Irvine economist David Neumark’s review of 100-plus major academic studies — which did not include studies from ideologically aligned think tanks — concluded that 85 percent of the analyses “find a negative employment effect on low-skilled workers.” Automation is likely to worsen this effect; Google “Europe” and “Corner Café” and you’ll see a Starbucks initiative that inevitably will be copied and yield mass displacement of U.S. fast-food workers.

“But even if minimum-wage hikes don’t kill jobs, the idea that this policy is a promising solution to income inequality makes little sense. In the big picture, what we need are many more people with in-demand job skills that lead to middle-income careers. And what we badly need from our elected leaders is an acknowledgment that California’s approach isn’t working in creating these job skills.

“Income inequality isn’t just growing in the U.S. It’s growing in all advanced nations as technological advances wipe out middle-class jobs by the millions. It’s growing everywhere as the job marketplace increasingly values — and strongly rewards — a narrower range of skills than it did previously.

“The best way to minimize the disruption this inexorable change creates is by maximizing the number of people with job skills not diminished by ‘creative destruction.’ For starters, we need a focus on computer science and technological expertise in middle school and high school — not curriculums based on the educational values of the 1950s. We also need to make it much easier for displaced workers of any age to go back to the classroom to get practical job training.

“Pursuing this ambitious agenda would be far more daunting than raising the minimum wage. But it has promise to significantly reduce income inequality — not nibble at the margins.”

Does left want to create middle-class jobs? Or play populist games?

As the success of the “war on women” rhetoric in getting young women to the polls in 2012 suggests, both parties are likely to be in permanent 24-7-365 campaign mode on a national level from here on out. That doesn’t bode well for substantive debate.

But at some point, it seems likely that the middle class — especially those with laid-off family memories or nervousness about their own prospects — will begin to tire of the Occupy rhetoric and the class-war cliches — the very efforts that laid the groundwork for the current relentless focus by Dems on the minimum wage. I wrote about the diminishing long-term returns of populist rhetoric in January:

“We could have marginal income tax rates of 90 percent, and it wouldn’t change the fact that for 40 years we have been moving inexorably toward an economy in which elite skill sets are highly rewarded while improving technology and automation steadily thin out jobs in which those with average job skills used to be able to make middle-class wages. Instead of the 1 percent vs. 99 percent divide, this is the divide that matters most. New York Times economics columnist Tyler Cowen pegs this gap as the 15 percent of working adults with elite job skills vs. the 85 percent without. …

“Thinking in fresh new ways about how we can become the society we need to become is not as tidy or viscerally satisfying as simply blaming the 1 percent. But it has far greater promise of actually yielding a more broadly prosperous society.”

In California, alas, thinking in fresh new ways is verboten in the state Capitol. Majority lawmakers are vastly more likely to use their clout to protect unions and public employees, to give trial lawyers new ways to squeeze money out of the legal system, and to pay tribute to the green religion then to actually take steps to create middle-class jobs.

Will most Californians notice this? Maybe not. I increasingly buy the theory that values drive voting more than pocketbook issues, a big change from a generation ago. And so in California, as long as non-white voters believe right-wingers are uncomfortable with them, right-wingers are doomed in statewide elections. As long as independent, secular Californians believe right-wingers are judgmental social conservatives, they’re doomed in statewide elections.

But if California libertarians and fiscal conservatives ever managed to advance a candidate who kept the focus on jobs and the economy and avoided the right’s baggage, it wouldn’t take a miracle for a GOPer to get elected to statewide office — just a 5-to-1, UCLA-in-this-year’s-March-Madness kind of long shot.

By Chris Reed

The Golden State may yet be rescued from its epic mismanagement by private-sector innovation that brings vast new wealth to California. For all our Solyndra-style boondoggles, there’s also extraordinarily promising work being done that could make San Diego County the Silicon Valley of both nanotechnology and biotechnology — interrelated fields which could revolutionize a stunning variety of industries and professions.

Major nanotech work is also being done in the Bay Area and several UC campuses besides UC San Diego. Only the Boston area has anything even approaching the concentration of advanced research seen up and down California. Here’s a map giving a good sense of the Golden State’s lead in this field. Austin, Texas, and the research triangle in North Carolina are only wanna-bes at this point.

Revolutions in medicine, energy, engineering and more

California’s good fortune on this front comes as stories about nanotechnology’s promise give way to stories about its increasingly common and ingenious uses. The same holds for biotechnology. I wrote about what this could mean for our state, our nation and the world last fall in the U-T San Diego:

“… American scientists … are poised to change the world through biotechnology -– the use of biological processes to manufacture products –- and nanotechnology -– the engineering of functional systems at the molecular level. …   The biggest single concentration of these scientists is … in San Diego –- some at UCSD’s world-leading Department of Bioengineering, some at ambitious private companies like Illumina and Life Technologies, and some at not-for-profit research organizations like the J. Craig Venter Institute.

“The Futurist magazine is right to say we are on the verge of the Bio Age, the modern heir to the transformative Iron, Stone and Bronze ages. Here are some of the breakthroughs we’re likely to see in coming years, achievements that would have seemed like fanciful science fiction not long ago:

“– A revolution in medicine, with nanotech-devised treatments reducing the threat of chronic diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and much more. Better tools to control the immune system will make organ replacement far easier -– and the prospect of creating synthetic organs looks more and more realistic. Monitors affixed to or inserted into the body will offer constants checks on health. The net effect: Human longevity could soon be sharply extended.

“– A revolution in energy, with nanotech tools making solar cells far more efficient and with biotech entrepreneurs developing low-cost, low-polluting organic fuels. Microscopic motors will grow in power and ubiquity, transforming many conventional products and giving rise to new types of manufacturing. The net effect could be a far higher standard of living.

“– A revolution in engineering, starting with a stunning new range of possibilities for materials used in buildings, vehicles and far more. “Buckypaper” –- immensely strong, super-light material –- may soon be relatively inexpensive. “Bioprinters” -– machines that can “print” living organisms -– are being developed. It’s not hyperbole to say the net effect is unfathomable. When engineering at the level of the atom becomes practical and easy, human imagination will take us astounding places.”

An ‘absurdly simple,’ immensely powerful battery

Now comes a discovery at UCLA that has the same fanciful science-fiction feel, courtesy of researchers who are part of the California NanoSystems Initiative.

“There’s a video making the viral rounds describing a potential energy storage device that seems way too good to be true: a high capacity ‘battery’ made in an almost absurdly simple process, which offers the prospect of super-fast charging of everything from smartphones to electric cars, and which can be safely composted at the end of its useful life.

“Despite the video’s recent popularity, this isn’t breaking news: it’s a year old. But the promise of this new technology is legitimate. It’s also pretty awesome.”

That was from a KCET report Tuesday. On Thursday, more details emerged.

“We told you that researchers at Ric Kamen’s lab at UCLA had found a way to make a non-toxic, highly efficient energy storage medium out of pure carbon using absurdly simple technology. Today, we can report that the same team may well have found a way to make that process scale up to mass-production levels.”

UCLA’s press office put out this description:

“The new micro-supercapacitors are also highly bendable and twistable, making them potentially useful as energy-storage devices in flexible electronics like roll-up displays and TVs, e-paper, and even wearable electronics. The researchers showed the utility of their new laser-scribed graphene micro-supercapacitor in an all-solid form, which would enable any new device incorporating them to be more easily shaped and flexible. The micro-supercapacitors can also be fabricated directly on a chip using the same technique, making them highly useful for integration into micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) or complementary metal-oxide-semiconductors (CMOS). As they can be directly integrated on-chip, these micro-supercapacitors may help to better extract energy from solar, mechanical and thermal sources and thus make more efficient self-powered systems. They could also be fabricated on the backside of solar cells in both portable devices and rooftop installations to store power generated during the day for use after sundown, helping to provide electricity around the clock when connection to the grid is not possible.”

As Johnny Carson would say, wild stuff. Let’s hope all this research pans out so something can stop California from its gradual descent into mediocrity and decay.

If it does pan out, one thing is completely sure: Jerry Brown will find a way to take credit for it.

By John Seiler

California’s misled voters just increased taxes by passing two initiatives. Federal taxes are set to go up sharply on Jan. 1. And local taxes have gone up in many areas, including for bonds I’m going to be forced to pay for the failed school systems here in Orange County.

But taxes already are sky high!

The evidence comes from Edward C. Prescott, co-winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Economics, is director of the Center for the Advanced Study in Economic Efficiency at Arizona State University and Lee E. Ohanian, the associate director of the center, is a professor of economics at UCLA and a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. They write:

“President Obama argues that the election gave him a mandate to raise taxes on high earners, and the White House indicates that he won’t compromise on this issue as the so-called fiscal cliff approaches.

“But tax rates are already high—much higher than is commonly understood—and increasing them will likely further depress the economy, especially by affecting the number of hours Americans work.”

And that goes doubly for the massive California tax increases.

High tax rates

“Taking into account all taxes on earnings and consumer spending—including federal, state and local income taxes, Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, excise taxes, and state and local sales taxes—Edward Prescott has shown (especially in the Quarterly Review of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, 2004) that the U.S. average marginal effective tax rate is around 40%. This means that if the average worker earns $100 from additional output, he will be able to consume only an additional $60.

“Research by others (including Lee Ohanian, Andrea Raffo and Richard Rogerson in the Journal of Monetary Economics, 2008, and Edward Prescott in the American Economic Review, 2002) indicates that raising tax rates further will significantly reduce U.S. economic activity and by implication will increase tax revenues only a little.”

That’s what I’ve been saying all along: That Gov. Jerry Brown isn’t going to get the $6 billion he’s expecting from his massive Proposition 30 tax increase, mainly an income tax increase on the top producers. Tax producers more, and they’ll produce less.

Indeed, the latest data from Controller John Chiang shows that income tax receipts in Nov. 2012 are down a shocking 19 percent from that expected in the fiscal 2012-13 budget that Gov. Brown signed into law back in June. Looks like rich folks are getting out of Dodge, Calif. before they get mugged again.

Wait! Didn’t Brown promise us before the election that millionaires would never flee, but would love to have their taxes raised? I rebutted the phony Stanford study he was touting back in October that supposedly showed millionaires wouldn’t leave.

Now, it looks like they really are leaving. And the research of the Nobel economist shows that tax increases will reduce economic activity and increase unemployment.

Republicans, as usual, remain clueless and timid at both the state and national levels.

Looks like 2013 is going to be a doozy of a bad economic year.