MOORLACH UPDATE — Health Insurance Mandate Penalty — June 25, 2019

The Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament, written mostly by King Solomon, is replete with exhortations to not oppress the poor. Consequently, I followed up on the observation I made in my last UPDATE (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Half Empty Reserve Concerns — June 24, 2019).

Yesterday afternoon, on the Senate Floor, I asked if 82% of the lower salaried taxpayers in the state paid for the Affordable Care Act mandate penalty in 2014. I did not receive a direct response. We were told the lower-paid residents would receive a supplement to offset their medical insurance costs.

I guess our lower-earning residents, like those just starting their careers, will have to do more math. Which is less expensive? Paying health insurance premiums and, hopefully, receiving some form of state subsidy, or just paying the mandate penalty?

Giving Medi-Cal to undocumented residents is unbelievable just by itself. But, forcing poorer legal residents to underwrite, by restoring the Affordable Care Act mandate penalty in California, it is oppressive. The trailer bill to do this was approved on a party-line basis, with one Democrat abstaining.

The Associated Press covers the topic in the KCRA Channel 3 piece below.

California Legislature OKs health insurance mandate

By Adam Beam

The California Legislature voted Monday to tax people who refuse to buy health insurance, bringing back a key part of former President Barack Obama’s health care law in the country’s most populous state after it was eliminated by Republicans in Congress.

The tax now heads to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who proposed a similar plan in January – an indication he will likely approve it.

The federal Affordable Care Act required everyone to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, ruling the penalty was a tax.

In 2017, Republicans in Congress eliminated the penalty – beginning this year – as part of an overhaul of the federal tax code.

The bill passed by Democrats in California would reinstate the tax, effective Jan. 1. No Republicans voted for it. One Democrat in the state Assembly – Rudy Salas Jr. – voted against it.

The penalty won’t apply to everyone, including people living in the country illegally. Lawmakers on Monday also approved a bill that would expand government-funded health insurance to low-income young adults living in the U.S. illegally.

People in prison and those who are members of an American Indian tribe are also exempt, mirroring what had been in the federal law.

Democrats say the plan is part of their efforts to make sure everyone in California has health insurance.

If the bill becomes law, California would join Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont and Washington, D.C., next year as the only governments in the U.S. to penalize people who don’t buy health insurance.

It would also make California the only state to use money it gets from the penalty to help people who earn as much as six times the federal poverty limit pay their monthly health insurance premiums.

That means a family of four earning up to $150,000 a year would be eligible.

“These new subsidies will impact almost 1 million Californians and help them get the health care access that they deserve,” said Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco.

Republican state Sen. John Moorlach said in 2014 that 82% of Californians who paid the penalty for not having health insurance had taxable incomes of $50,000 or less.

“This trailer bill will take money away from people making $30,000 to $50,000 a year and give it to people making between $75,000 and $130,000 a year,” GOP Assemblyman Jay Obernolte said. “That makes no sense.”

The state has already extended government health benefits to children living in the country illegally. The plan approved Monday would extend that coverage to people as old as 25.

While the proposal easily passed the Legislature, it brought a rebuke from Democratic Sen. Maria Elena Durazo from Los Angeles. She criticized the bill for not providing health care coverage to people 65 and older living in the country illegally.

“We’ve missed an opportunity to create fairness and inclusion,” she said.


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — Half Empty Reserve Concerns — June 24, 2019

The Sacramento Bee continues with my concerns about the glass being half empty in the piece below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Biggest Budget, Biggest Deficit — June 10, 2019).

“I’ve been voting no or abstaining on a lot of spending opportunities,” Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, said. “Some people think the glass is half full, I’m looking at it as half empty, so that will maybe explain my caution on a lot of these spending votes tonight.”

The piece does a good job of sharing the concerns I’ve been expressing this year on the Budget Conference Committee, in the Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee and on the Senate Floor. Time will tell whether my prediction is correct or whether it was a lack of confidence in the potential of an ongoing growing economy under our current President. Speaking of predictions, you’ll enjoy the Look Back.

25th Anniversary Look Back

The summer of 1994 would be quiet, except for the O. J. Simpson drama resulting from the brutal murder of OC native Nicole Brown Simpson.

Bill Lobdell, in his regular Daily Pilot "Editor’s Notebook" column of June 25, 1994, had a little fun with his piece, titled "Reinecke will concede vote if and when . . . " Among many other humorous predictions:

Costa Mesa arch-conservative John Moorlach will appear on a Democratic mailer, sharing endorsement space with Dianne Feinstein and Kathleen Brown (Oops! That’s already happened.)

Another one was:

Angels will win the World Series.

(Oops! That actually did happen eight years later!)

But, speaking of Major League Baseball, Bill Lobdell would print my Daily Pilot editorial submission, titled "Far From ‘Scuzzy’ — Candidate says his campaign for treasurer took high road." It’s provided in full. For more on Fred Martin’s barbs, see MOORLACH UPDATE — Biggest Budget, Biggest Deficit — June 10, 2019 and MOORLACH UPDATE — Clean Drinking Water Funding — June 11, 2019.

The piece would even include this photo:

From left: John Moorlach (with his son, Daniel) talks last year with fellow conservatives [U.S.] Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, {OC} Supervisor Tom Riley.

I would like to say thanks to those Daily Pilot readers who voted for me. Probably being the only Costa Mesan to have ever run for a countywide seat, I am appreciative of your encouragement and support.

Running for Orange County treasurer-tax collector was a great experience. While not being a well-known personality, I was happy to obtain nearly four out of every 10 votes cast, with a much better showing in this paper’s readership area.

In fact, I also ended up being the highest vote getter in my other race, that of the Republican Central Committee in the 70th Assembly District, just edging out Newport Beach Councilwoman Evelyn Hart.

My treasurer’s campaign focused on trying to educate the public about Bob Citron’s complex and super-speculative investment approach. It was very difficult to do, but many understood. In a nutshell, his portfolio is a major league gamble that interest rates will continue to go down from their already 30-year lows. What happened during the campaign? The Federal Reserve Board raised rates four times and brought my point close to home.

Since Mr. Citron would not debate me during the campaign, I spent time trying to educate the reporters covering it, even giving them copies of the portfolio, which I finally received a month before the election. Unfortunately, you can lead a reporter to water but you can’t always make them think. This is even more true for those reporters and editorial writers of the liberal persuasion.

The media defended and protected their lone Democrat. Fred Martin’s recent vitriolic statements about my campaign are a good case in point.

I know you shouldn’t get into a pissing contest with a skunk, but Fred’s anti-conservative rhetoric should at least receive a response. Fred stated that I ran a "scuzzy" campaign. I beg to differ. I believe I ran a clean campaign that had a message, dealt with the issues, and questioned the incumbent’s management, while never attacking his character.

Counter Point 1 – Fred claims that I tried to "denigrate incumbent Robert L. Citron because he is a Democrat." Not true. The most difficult task I faced was how to inform the voters that he was a Democrat. Fortunately, Mr. Citron and the press did that heavy lifting for me. Mr. Citron kept referring to my campaign as some type of partisan plot. Give me a break. It is preferred that Republicans challenge Democrats, this made the treasurer’s seat fair game for someone who was qualified and willing to serve his community.

Counter Point 2 – "Spending . . . Republican dollars to get (my) name and mug shot in a ‘Democratic Voter Guide.’" Here Fred really shows his double standards. Liberals can, but if conservatives do, then watch out. Mr. Citron purchased space on Republican slate mailers. He caused me to negotiate harder to get on the few that I did. I’m sure Fred is ignorant about the economics of politics, but I did need to reach Democrats, too.

Counter Point 3 – "One Moorlach supporter went so far as to endanger Orange County’s unblemished credit record by repeatedly contacting New York bond-rating services and financial media, trying to get them to investigate Citron."

Again, Fred should have done a little more research here. This supporter was a third candidate in this race. He is a reputable Newport Beach investor who is a major player in the financial market, a highly quoted expert on corporate bankruptcy, and the chairman of a large publicly held corporation. He eventually did not file to run against Citron, but he knew what risks were being taken and wanted Citron replaced for the sake of his community and County.

Counter Point 4 – Fred asserts that I tried to "terrify the citizens by alleging that Citron’s complex investment strategies are going to lose all the county’s money." I never states or implied that all of the money would be lost. I did say that his portfolio was down $1.2 billion ($1,000 per registered voter); a conservative estimate. I requested the county’s market values, but Citron refused to give them. I stuck to Citron’s performance, Citron skirted the issues.

Citron has borrowed $14 billion to invest ($5,600 per county resident) with $8 billion of it borrowed and invested near the top of the bond market. He invested $5.5 billion in derivatives. He incurred over $300 million in collateral calls during the campaign, which translates into a major loss in equity. Many counties would like to have $300 million to invest, let alone lose.

My message was simple: higher returns equal higher risks. Without belaboring the point, time will tell whether I was correct or whether it was a bum rap.

Mr. Citron finally had a challenger after 23 years and it was good for the system, Citron, and the public. Unfortunately, Fred, it was Citron who ran a scuzzy campaign based on obfuscating the true risks he has taken.

Many voters understood the truth. That is why I obtained a good portion of the vote for the first time out of the chute. I’m not embarrassed nor do I fell that I compromised my standards. It’s unfortunate that grumpy Fred can only look at it through his anti-conservative Republican glasses. I’ll see you down the road, my friend. Perhaps I’ll do something to earn and be honored by your biased ink again.

Getting ready for recession,

California’s $215 billion budget

fills reserves. But is it enough?


Stung by severe cuts to services in the Great Recession, California lawmakers are riding the state’s booming economy to put more money than ever into savings accounts meant to soften the hurt of the next downturn.

They just don’t know if it’s enough.

Altogether, the budget Gov. Gavin Newsom will sign this week aims to build up reserves to more than $19 billion in four separate savings accounts by next year.

One account, the so-called rainy day fund with $16.5 billion, can only be tapped in a recession. Another unlocks funding for social services. One more piles up $400 million for education, and the last one is projected to hold $1.4 billion for emergencies and natural disasters.

It’s an unprecedented sum for a state that’s famous for its boom-and-bust budgets.

“We’ve never taken action to be prepared before,” said Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, chairwoman of the Senate’s Budget Committee. “We’ve only managed by expanding and cutting, cutting and expanding. This is the first time we’ve had something considered a safety net reserve.”

Mitchell a dozen years ago led one of the largest nonprofit agencies in the state, which delivered assistance to low-income families. She had to take out loans to keep checks moving to families every time the Legislature failed to pass a budget on time.

To her, the reserves represent an effort to end the cycle of welfare cuts and IOUS that characterized the years of chronic deficits and prolonged budget battles. In 2009, the state faced a $42 billion deficit. This year, it’s projecting a surplus greater than $21 billion.

“We have worked for years to get to this,” Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, said last week.

But others argue the Democratic governor and Legislature could do more to guard against the reductions they may have to make in a recession.

The nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California last month issued a report suggesting the state had adequate reserves for a mild recession, but could see revenue fall by to $185 billion over five years in a severe downturn. The Legislative Analyst’s Office also has consistently made a case for more savings this year.

“By building even more reserves than it already has, the Legislature could mitigate the need for program cuts, tax increases, or spending deferrals when the next recession strikes,” Legislative Analyst Gabriel Petek wrote in April.

California and the U.S. as a whole now are in one of the longest-ever periods of economic growth. Newsom and lawmakers say they know a recession is on the horizon. Here’s a look at what keeps California budget hawks up at night, and what comforts them.



When California’s wealthiest residents catch a cold, the state’s budget gets the flu.

California collects 70 percent of its general fund revenue from personal income tax, and almost half of that money comes from the state’s wealthiest 1 percent of households, according to the Public Policy Institute of California report.

The ratio leads California tax collections to swing dramatically in recessions because wealthy taxpayers are less likely to cash in big bonuses or capital gains in down economies.

California has taken a number of steps to moderate its tax volatility since the Great Recession, but its fundamental reliance on the wealthiest households persists.


While state leaders in Sacramento sock away a surplus, school districts and local governments around California are raising taxes and trimming their budgets.

Sacramento County, for instance, approved a budget this month with $43 million in cuts. School districts from Sacramento to Paso Robles are reporting financial trouble, too.

In general, schools and local governments are reporting tight margins because of the rising cost of funding their employees’ pensions and benefits. Newsom’s budget offers schools some help by making supplemental payments toward their pension debts at the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, but Republicans say the financial distress is a sign that more severe cuts will come.

“Here we are in a time of plenty, and I don’t see any money other than the amount flowing to CalSTRS to help out local school districts. I don’t see anything going to help cities or counties. They’re going to be hit really hard,” said Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa.


Despite the surplus, some California state leaders talk about the economy in terms of looming austerity.

Devastating wildfire seasons can wipe out savings in a heartbeat, for instance. Newsom is proposing a $24 billion plan to prepare for the kinds of catastrophe that wiped out Paradise and parts of Santa Rosa over the past two years.

Meanwhile, changes in the way people work can alter how they pay taxes. The gig economy and robotics could lead to fewer Californians paying payroll taxes.

Those changes are hard to predict, and they could lead to serious consequences in a downturn.

In a recession, “it will all converge in terms of challenges we have,” State Controller Betty Yee said. “The best thing we can do now is just keep building up these reserves.”



The rainy day fund and other state savings accounts are designed to cushion cuts in a recession, and lawmakers plan to use them when the time comes.


Since the Great Recession, California voters and lawmakers adopted a number of new taxes that will keep money flowing to the state in a downturn. They include:

· Proposition 55, the voter-approved tax on households with incomes greater than $250,000 that expires in 2030.

· The gas tax, a 2017 law that aims to raise about $52 billion for transportation projects over a decade.

· Cannabis taxes are coming in below initial projections, but they’re still on track to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for programs every year.

· And, California now demands that out-of-state online retailers collect state and local taxes on behalf of their Golden State customers. That wasn’t the case a decade ago.


Some parts of Newsom’s budget avoid ongoing commitments by committing to only temporary funding.

One example is a measure that eliminates sales tax on diapers and tampons for just two years. The short window lets lawmakers decide whether they want to continue the tax breaks and services if the economy changes.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office last month projected that Newsom’s budget included $1.8 billion in spending that would “sunset within a couple of years.”


Newsom and the Legislature celebrated paying off the “wall of debt” the state accumulated during the recession. Former Gov. Jerry Brown chipped away at the $33 billion in liabilities during his terms, and the new budget puts away the last of those short-term debts.

To be sure, California still owes tens of billions of dollars that it doesn’t have on hand for pensions and other debts, but clearing Great Recession debts heartened lawmakers who were in the Capitol when they last made serious cuts.

“If you look at the new revenue, 82 percent of this surplus money either goes to a reserve account of which there are a number, pays down (debt) or pre-pays pensions,” Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg, D-Los Angeles, said last week. “It evidences a level of responsibility of where we’re focused.”


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — Wildfire Fund and the Poor — June 22, 2019

Last year, SB 901 set up the Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery. The Commission recommended creating a fund as a backstop for wildfire victims to address utility viability and residence insurability moving forward (see MOORLACH UPDATE — A Seriously Taxing Budget — June 14, 2019 ).

Gov. Newsom just introduced his version of the recommendations. The Wall Street Journal provides Friday’s announcement in the piece below.

I was there in 2001 during the energy crisis that forced PG&E into Chapter 11 the first time. The solution then? A "temporary" surcharge on customers. And it was set to expire in 2020.

The Governor’s proposal is to continue the surcharge. My concern? It impacts the poor in a much more significant manner, as a percentage of disposable income, than those with annual earnings above the poverty level. And, PG&E customers are already paying higher rates compared to the rest of California and other states.

The poor, who commute to their jobs, will see a gas tax increase in a few days (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Award, Rankings and More Taxes — June 21, 2019). So, what is Sacramento doing to help the poor? Sadly, it’s the opposite. It is hurting and harming the poor.

The poor, who now see a smartphone as a necessity, not a luxury, will find their phone bills rising as much as 80 cents per month. This may be small potatoes for someone earning more than $100,000 per year, but not someone working full time in a minimum wage job with high housing costs (see MOORLACH UPDATE — A Seriously Taxing Budget — June 14, 2019).

The poor, who were relieved when President Trump recently removed the health insurance mandate tax penalty on their Federal income tax returns, may see it again on their California income tax returns. The Legislature votes on this new revenue source next week.

Research of Federal income tax returns has found that, during the years 2014 to 2016, Californians who earned $50,000 or less paid 82% of the individual mandate penalties. Those earning less than $25,000 represented 45%, nearly half. And those earning between $25,000 to $50,000 paid 37%. These are California’s poor!

And they will be paying the mandate again because Governor Newsom wants to underwrite health care benefits for undocumented individuals (see MOORLACH UPDATE — ACA Penalty Tax — June 19, 2019). How ironic is that?

The "flush" budget gives an amazing number of dollars to pet projects in districts around the state, but the poor are being taxed more (see MOORLACH UPDATE — $214.8 Billion Budget Approved — June 13, 2019). How does this even make sense?

At least the poor dodged a bullet by not seeing their water bills increase. Water is a necessity and a necessary expense for everyone. The Governor is using cap and trade revenues to address safe drinking water concerns instead (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Clean Drinking Water Funding — June 11, 2019). But, the poor will bear the cost indirectly in their gasoline prices.

Taxpayers at the local level, who usually come to the rescue for their local schools, opposed a parcel tax earlier this month in Los Angeles (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Results Released — June 6, 2019). Maybe the personal budgets of the middle class are also over extended?

How can the poor ever break the cycle of poverty when Sacramento weighs them down with more levies on their necessity for gas and cell phones and, for many, an inability to afford medical insurance? What about their solvency?

Gavin Newsom Proposes Wildfire Fund to Bolster PG&E, Other California Utilities

Governor’s plan is designed to help companies cover fire costs that have threatened their solvency

By Alejandro Lazo and
Katherine Blunt

Gov. Gavin Newsom is proposing a multibillion-dollar wildfire fund to help California’s utilities cover mounting fire-related liability costs that have threatened their financial health.

The fund is part of a wider regulatory overhaul the Democratic governor unveiled Friday as he seeks to reach consensus with state lawmakers on fixing the crisis created by the collapse of PG&E Corp. , which sought bankruptcy protection in January after its role in sparking wildfires created more than $30 billion in potential liabilities.

Concerns about massive wildfire-related liability costs are also weighing on California’s two other major investor-owned utilities, Edison International ’s Southern California Edison and Sempra Energy’s San Diego Gas & Electric, spurring downgrades to their credit ratings and putting pressure on politicians to act.

Mr. Newsom outlined two possible models for a wildfire fund—one valued at $10.5 billion and another at $21 billion, aides to the governor said.

The $10.5 billion proposal would be structured as a revolving loan funded by extending a surcharge on electricity bills and securitizing the revenue through state-issued bonds. The $21 billion proposal would double the amount by including an insurance policy requiring a $10.5 billion contribution from the three utilities.

Under Mr. Newsom’s proposal, Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric would choose which option they prefer, with PG&E bound by whatever they decided but excluded from the decision-making process, the governor’s aides said.

“PG&E’s leadership is committed to continuing to work with the governor and all stakeholders on shared solutions that will compensate wildfire victims fairly and equitably and mitigate the ever-growing threat of wildfire risk,” the company in a statement.

Mr. Newsom is aiming to navigate pressure from Wall Street to limit utility exposure to wildfire risk, which has grown in recent years amid drought and climate change, while avoiding criticism from activists that California is bailing out PG&E, which has gone bankrupt twice in the past two decades.

“This does a relatively good job of trying to walk that line,” said Height Securities analyst Clayton Allen.

If Mr. Newsom’s fund proposal is approved by the state’s Democratic-dominated legislature, California utilities could use the money to offset future liability costs stemming from deadly wildfires. An unusual state constitutional provision puts utilities on the hook to pay property damages resulting from fires sparked by their equipment.

But they couldn’t use the fund to help cover costs from prior wildfires, such as last year’s Camp Fire, California’s deadliest ever, which killed 85 people and destroyed the town of Paradise. State investigators in May concluded that PG&E equipment sparked the fire.

To access the fund, the utilities would have to comply with upgraded safety criteria. They also would have to collectively spend $3 billion on fire-detection technology such as weather stations and cameras. The companies would have to pay for those improvements without earning any additional profit on the spending through customer charges.

Edison said it is reviewing the details of the proposal. “We appreciate the governor’s continued sense of urgency on this important matter that impacts all Californians,” the company said in a statement.

Mr. Newsom has also proposed a new division of the utilities’ primary regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, charged with setting more stringent safety standards for the utilities and periodically reviewing their safety cultures, the aides said. Utilities would have to get a new annual safety certification from the division in order to tap the wildfire fund.

The governor is hoping state lawmakers will act to create the fund by July 12, before they take a month long summer break, aides said.

“I am ready to work all night,” said state Sen. Henry Stern, a Democrat who represents parts of Ventura and Los Angeles counties that were hit hard by wildfires in 2017 and 2018. “But it’s hard to predict if everyone has the energy to get this done before we leave for the July recess.”

State Sen. John Moorlach, a Republican from Orange County, said he didn’t like the extension of the surcharge on utility bills to pay for the wildfire fund. “It has a real impact on the poor and it also has a real impact on industry,” he said.

Driving the timetable is PG&E’s bankruptcy. Mr. Newsom has pressed the utility to quickly file a plan of reorganization, telling the bankruptcy court last month that the utility hasn’t “demonstrated that it understands the gravity and urgency of the situation.”

State investigators have tied PG&E equipment to 19 wildfires in the past two years, and homeowners, businesses, cities, insurers and others are seeking compensation for billions in damages from the company, an issue that will now be resolved as part of the bankruptcy process.

Credit-rating firms have also said they would further downgrade Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric if lawmakers don’t address the issue this summer, over concerns that PG&E’s liability problems could spread to the other companies if significant wildfires hit southern parts of the state.

Moody’s Investors Service analyst Jeff Cassella said the governor’s proposal had the potential to bolster the utilities’ credit ratings, but that the extent of the relief would depend on the details of the fund structure.

After meeting with lawmakers recently, Citi analyst Praful Mehta wrote that there was momentum in Sacramento to accelerate PG&E’s emergence from bankruptcy and bolster the state’s other utilities, calling it “very likely” that legislation passes by summer’s end.

Still, finding political consensus on a rescue plan could prove politically challenging, given the unpopularity of PG&E following years of fires.

Under Mr. Newsom’s proposal, the Southern California utilities would have 15 days after legislation is enacted to decide which of the wildfire fund options they prefer. The smaller option would be a “liquidity fund” that would essentially serve as a revolving line of credit funded by extending a surcharge California electricity customers have been paying since 2002.

That year, the Department of Water Resources issued bonds to pay down debt following the state’s 2001 electricity crisis. The surcharge had been set to expire in 2020. Extending it could produce about $870 million a year, which aides for Mr. Newsom estimated could be securitized over 15 years into a $10.5 billion fund.

The fund would provide cash up front to cover claims while the utilities collect the money needed to reimburse it over time. Only utilities determined to have acted prudently in managing their operations could recoup those costs from ratepayers. Otherwise, investors would foot the bill.

The larger option would require utilities to pay $7.5 billion up front and $300 million annually for 10 years to create what Mr. Newsom’s aides labeled an insurance fund that would provide greater liability protection and potentially cover some costs resulting from mismanagement. A utility that had acted safely would have full access to the fund and no reimbursement requirement. But a utility found to have acted irresponsibly would be required to pay a deductible in order to tap it and could not raise customer rates as a result.

Mindy Spatt, spokeswoman for The Utility Reform Network, a consumer advocacy group, expressed skepticism that the proposal would protect utility customers from paying higher electricity prices. She also criticized the surcharge extension as a means of capitalizing the fund.

“When those charges were added to customers’ bills, we were told they were temporary,” she said.

PG&E would have to resolve its existing claims and exit bankruptcy by June 30, 2020, or be shut out of the fund entirely.

“There will only be one fund,” an aide for the governor said. “So PG&E is stuck with whatever gets built.”


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — Award, Rankings and More Taxes — June 21, 2019

This week I had the opportunity to honor a dear friend, fellow C.P.A. Mark Wille. Mark and I became acquainted some 27 years ago when he performed my firm’s peer review. It was the first such exercise for Balser, Horowitz, Frank & Wakeling, An Accountancy Corporation, as it was a new industry requirement, and I fared well.

As we are encouraged to recognize businesses in our Districts every year, it only made sense to recognize a Certified Public Accountant. And since my old firm is located some fifty feet outside of my District, Mark was the natural.

In 2018, I recognized the family law practice of Hughes & Hughes (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Janus Decision — June 28, 2018). My recipient in 2017 was the Newport Beach Veterinary Hospital (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Alumni and Recognition — June 7, 2017).

The Orange County Business Journal was recognized in 2016 (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Taxportation Chronicles — June 4, 2016). And my first recipient, back in 2015, was Zov’s Restaurants (see MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 593 — June 10, 2015).

The Daily Pilot and the Orange County Breeze were kind enough to announce the news in the first and second pieces below. Thank you, Mark and Vicki Wille, for coming up and enjoying Sacramento for a couple of days.

It’s the beginning of summer, and many of the comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs) for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 are still outstanding. They are trickling in one or two a day, but we still do not have the complete set for the 50 states, and, for California, 58 counties, 482 cities and 944 school districts.

One city, Compton, hasn’t completed its CAFR since 2013. Now there’s a story for the local press in LA. We hope to publish the results of the per capita unrestricted net positions for the state, county and local levels soon.

Last year’s report on the school districts is still being referred to and Culver City Unified School District received a cynical barb in the Culver City Observer, which is the third piece below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — California School District Rankings, Group 13 — August 28, 2018).

Yesterday, the Senate approved a cell phone tax increase. Speaking of the continuation of yet more tax increases, your gas tax goes up another 5.6 cents in ten days. The LA Times reminds us of this upcoming burden in the fourth piece below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Big Gas and Electric Costs — May 21, 2019).

Let me provide you with a friendly reminder that Gov. Brown intentionally kept spending on road repairs flat during his eight years in office, even as gas tax revenues rose, thus creating an artificial crisis to justify the need for a gas tax increase. He did the same during his first stint as governor, 1975-83. At least Orange County voters improved their roads by passing the self-help initiatives known as Measure M, the first time in 1990 and the second time in 2006. Consequently, you can tell where the LA County line is when you’re driving north on the Santa Ana Freeway.

Moorlach names Newport Beach CPA as district Small Business of the Year


State Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) recently presented Newport Beach-based Mark F. Wille, CPA, with the Small Business of the Year award for the 37th Senate District.

Along with its professional services, the firm has helped several charitable, philanthropic and nonprofit causes, according to a news release.

“Mark has been a pioneer in performing peer reviews for certified public accounting firms and has been a respected continuing professional education presenter and author,” Moorlach said in a statement.

Moorlach names Mark F. Wille, C.P.A. Small Business of the Year

Today, Senator John M. W. Moorlach (R- Costa Mesa) presented the Small Business of the Year Award to Mark F. Wille, C.P.A., A Professional Accountancy Corporation for the 37th Senate District.

“Mark F. Wille, CPA has become a recognized personal and business advisor for the Orange County community since 1987. Mark has been a pioneer in performing peer reviews for Certified Public Accounting firms and has been a respected continuing professional education presenter and author. In fact, he focuses 20 percent of his consultation time serving accounting practices. I am privileged to present this accountancy firm with this award,” said Moorlach.

Since the founding of the firm more than 30 years ago, they have assisted countless businesses to realize their dreams of sustainability and growth through their customized individual approach to each client they serve. In addition, Wille and the firm are service minded; they have assisted multiple charitable and service-oriented organizations. Wille also serves in various leadership positions with philanthropic and nonprofit causes such as the Boy Scouts of America and the Orange County Audit Oversight Committee.

This article was released by the Office of Senator John Moorlach.

Will CCUSD Seek Another Parcel Tax?

School Board President Claims, “We have no money”

By Neil Rubenstein
Observer Columnist

Is it possible? I spoke to the President of the Culver City Board of Education at the Clayton Library and Museum on Sunday, June 8, 2019. My question, “Are you going to put another parcel tax for us to vote on?” Well, Kelly Kent said, “We don’t have any money”. For those of us who have a fifth-grade memory will clearly remember a commentary from May 2019 when the Governor told us how much dough was in the pipeline. Although the exact amount hasn’t been decided the exact size of check just might be much, much larger to accommodate all those zeroes. The bigger question is where did all that tax money go? I just bet many of you remember State Senator John Moorlach’s fiscal responsibility rating of all the school districts in the Golden State. If we are honest with each other we would admit the Board doesn’t seem, in my opinion, to have a long-range policy other than throwing money at various projects. It just might take the strong hand of Superintendent Dr. Lockhard talking behind closed doors. How many more parcel tax increases do we get before the district hires a professional to audit the books.

California gas tax goes up July 1, but leaders say road repairs need even more money


California is poised to charge the highest taxes and fees on gas in the country when an increase kicks in July 1, but officials say the state is still billions of dollars short of what’s needed to properly fix the roads and are considering additional charges.

The gasoline tax is set to climb by 5.6 cents per gallon, the second in a wave of increases approved by state leaders two years ago to raise billions of dollars for road and bridge repairs and mass transit.

Combined with a 12-cent increase that took effect in November 2017, the taxes and vehicle fees approved in a bill known as SB 1 are projected to add $5.4 billion in the coming year to transportation funding.

But officials estimate $130 billion is needed to bring the state’s roads and bridges into a state of good repair. The gas tax increases of 2017 will raise some $52 billion during the first 10 years but that will leave a road repair shortfall of approximately $78 billion.

The tax does not expire after 10 years and will continue to grow with the cost of living in future decades.

“The current funding is not sufficient, it is not enough,” said Tony Akel, a Fresno engineer who is a leader of the American Society of Civil Engineers. “We know that there is a big gap that is a result of years of underfunding.”

The group just released a study that gives California’s roads a “D” grade, saying they are among the worst in the country. State Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose), who authored the gas tax measure, said the evaluation appears accurate, but argued it is not a failure of the tax measure, just too early an assessment.

“You won’t see the impact of SB 1 for another couple of years,” Beall said. “The grades are based on actual conditions, and the SB 1 projects are underway but they are not finished. Road conditions will improve.”

The state has completed about 100 transportation projects and 400 more are in the works, according to the administration of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Projects funded so far include $135.9 million to improve 104 lane miles of Interstate 605 and $54.9 million for 99 lane miles of State Route 1 in Los Angeles County. Projects completed so far include repaving a stretch of Interstate 5 between the 605 and Washington Boulevard in Los Angeles County.

“SB 1 was never expected to completely fund all backlog work, but it has given us a great start to making up for years of underfunding,” said Jeff Burdick, a spokesman for Caltrans.

The increase taking effect next month means the total state taxes and fees on gasoline will be 57.8 cents per gallon, based on the current average price of gas across California.

That will just edge out the 57.6 cents-per-gallon charged by Pennsylvania. Washington state will remain in third place, charging motorists 49.4 cents per gallon.

(Some of the California tax is based on a percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas, so a significant drop in prices could cause the overall tax to drop — at least temporarily — below Pennsylvania’s.)

Alaska and Missouri have the lowest gas taxes in the country, with per-gallon charges of 14.34 and 17.35 cents respectively, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Motorists in all states also pay 18.4 cents per gallon in federal fuel taxes.

“California will be number one in another category that it shouldn’t be number one in,” said state Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa), who opposed SB 1 as it made its way through the Legislature. “These incremental increases drive people nuts. They are trying to meet their budgets, and we keep pounding away at it.”

Assembly Democrats, in a 49-17 vote, on Monday blocked an attempt by Republicans to postpone the July tax hike. “Democrats reaffirmed their support for a regressive gas tax increase that punishes every Californian who can’t afford a Tesla,” said Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R-Visalia). “So much for being the party of working people.”

SB 1 calls for additional annual increases to California’s gas tax based on inflation starting July 1, 2020.

Beall, the chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, agreed with the assessment of the engineers’ group that current revenue is insufficient.

“Money went to local [agencies] from the gas tax, but they still need more,” Beall said, adding that the federal government needs to increase its funding for roads, while counties also can go to their voters for local sales tax increases for transportation projects.

Voters in Riverside County are among those who may be asked next year to raise taxes to fill a funding shortfall to fix the roads.

The Riverside County Transportation Commission has launched a study to determine how to make up a $12.6-billion gap between its transportation needs and expected funding over the next 20 years, according to Cheryl Donahue, a manager at the agency.

“As part of its review, the commission will determine whether asking county voters to consider a sales tax measure to fund transportation improvements is part of the best overall approach to reducing congestion and improving mobility,” Donahue said.

The San Diego Metropolitan Transit System also is considering whether to ask voters to increase the sales tax by up to one-half cent next year to pay for transit, highway and road improvements, spokesman Rob Schupp said. The San Diego Assn. of Governments released a poll in March that found strong voter support for such a tax, with 70% of those surveyed saying “improving roads to support transit services” is important.

Voters in San Mateo and San Benito counties approved sales tax increases in November for road projects.

Moorlach said Orange County, where he lives, has approved two local tax measures to fund its transportation needs in recent years, and he does not have a problem with other counties following suit.

The group Move L.A. has proposed a grander plan, suggesting that raising local sales taxes by a half-cent in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside counties could bring in about $1.5 billion per year for public projects.

Much of the money would go to South Coast Air Quality Management District efforts to increase non-polluting transportation, including electric cars and trucks. But some could be spent on infrastructure including bike and pedestrian lanes, which SB 1 finances.

The air district has sponsored a bill, SB 732, that would allow it to ask voters to raise the sales tax by up to 1% in the four counties. The legislation is expected to be taken up next year.

State law requires a two-thirds vote to approve a local tax increase for transportation, but a pair of other pending bills could make approval easier. A bill in the Legislature would put a measure on the November 2020 statewide ballot that would allow cities, counties and special districts to impose taxes if 55% of local voters approve. The measure would benefit projects involving affordable housing and infrastructure, including improvements to transit and streets and highways.

Another bill, AB 1413, would allow local transportation agencies like San Diego’s to seek voter approval of tax increases in any portion of the county, so if some areas want better roads they can vote on them. The measure would allow communities to pay for “improving roads, transit, highways, or other transportation infrastructure as they see fit,” said Assemblyman Todd Gloria (D-San Diego).

But the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. argued agencies “shouldn’t be able to pick and choose among their tax base to make it easier to increase regressive sales taxes.”

State lawmakers also are considering a bill that would charge a 10% tax on every barrel of oil pumped from the ground in California to bring in some $900 million annually. That, critics say, would mean motorists will pay more at the pump. Backers of the bill deny there would be a significant impact on drivers.

Money raised by the bill would go to the general fund but could help with transportation, said Sen. Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), the legislation’s author.

“While other states have brought in billions of dollars for their constituents through an oil severance tax, California has had to dip into its own pockets to cover extensive clean-up costs brought about by the oil industry’s irresponsible actions,” Wieckowski said. “Californians deserve better.”


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — ACA Penalty Tax — June 19, 2019

The Associated Press has an amazing national reach. So, the quote I gave them regarding the majority party wanting to provide MediCal benefits to undocumented immigrants has been seen literally around the nation (see MOORLACH UPDATE — $214.8 Billion Budget Approved — June 13, 2019).

The Signal of Santa Clarita Valley took the quote and shaped an excellent editorial around it in the first piece below.

The use of Medi-Cal for undocumented immigrants has really frustrated the residents of California and it has caught the attention of the country. The Epoch Times covers interviews with me and Assemblyman Jay Obernolte on the subject in the second piece below. The Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee approved the "tax" penalty this afternoon and it will be forwarded to the Senate Floor soon.

Our View | Who Will Pay the Tab for Illegal Residents’ Care?

By The Signal Editorial Board

Suppose you have a choice to help two children in need. One of them is a perfect stranger, and the other is your own flesh and blood, your child, your son or daughter.

Assume their needs are roughly equal and they would face similar consequences without your help.

Who are you helping first? Would you protect the stranger at the expense of your own kid? Of course not. That’s not to say you have no compassion for the stranger, and it’s not to say you wouldn’t help the stranger if you could help both kids. But if you had to choose one, who’s your top priority?

It’s your kid. That’s a no-brainer. You wouldn’t dream of helping the stranger if it meant jeopardizing one of your own.

Yet, in California’s fervor to do anything and everything to help those living in the United States illegally, that’s exactly what will happen under the budget approved Thursday by the state Legislature.

Assuming Gov. Gavin Newsom approves the $214.8 million budget — which was expected but had not yet happened as of press time for this writing — California will become the first state to provide taxpayer-funded health insurance for some of those who are in the United States illegally.

And how are our hyper-compassionate Democratic legislative supermajority and Gov. Newsom planning to pay for it?

By taxing legal residents, our own citizens, who can’t afford health insurance. Of course. That’s how twisted this state’s priorities have become. It’s like California has fallen into Alice’s rabbit hole and Gov. Newsom is our own Mad Hatter.

California won’t even consider helping the federal government enforce immigration law, even if it means protecting violent criminals from deportation. Californians pay tens of millions of dollars every year to help pay for illegal immigrants to go to college while our own children face a lifetime burden of student loan debt.

And now, we tax our citizens who can’t afford health care so we can provide health insurance for illegal immigrants. In California, that’s what passes for making sense.

Yes, the illegal immigrants who will benefit, in the 19 to 25 age group, are largely comprised of people who were brought here as children by their parents. So a large percentage of them did not willfully break the law when they immigrated. They deserve compassion.

Yet, it’s still wrong for California to put them in line for health insurance on the backs of our own citizens in need.

Here’s how the $98 million illegal immigrant Medi-Cal health care tab will be picked up not only by you, the taxpayer, but specifically by taxpayers who themselves have difficulty affording health care: Remember the Obamacare provision that imposed a tax on those who don’t have health care? Thankfully, that provision was ditched under the 2017 Republican-led tax code overhaul.

But California is bringing it back at the state level, because in Sacramento, no idea is a bad idea if it benefits illegal immigrants at the expense of taxpaying citizens. So, under the new budget, those who do not have health care will be taxed, and the proceeds will be used to insure illegal immigrants ages 19-25.

And don’t kid yourself into thinking this will be the last of it. This is the kind of thing California’s Legislature will expand upon in the future.

As the Associated Press reported, “The proposal has angered Republican lawmakers, who argue it’s not fair to tax people in the country legally for not buying health insurance while making people living in the country illegally eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance. ‘I just don’t get the prioritization,’ Republican Sen. John Moorlach of Costa Mesa said ahead of the vote. He noted he legally immigrated to the U.S. from the Netherlands in 1960.”

That’s it in a nutshell. And, this isn’t about refusing emergency care to anyone, regardless of immigration status. Of course, no one should be denied real emergency medical care.

When anyone with an emergency medical situation visits an emergency room seeking treatment, they should receive it, whether they are here legally or not.

Rather, this is about priorities, and taxing citizens to pay to insure non-citizens. Guess which segments of our population are the ones most likely to be hit with that tax?

Certainly not the most affluent among us. The affluent can afford insurance. It’ll be the low- to middle-income people living paycheck to paycheck, the people who choose food and rent over health insurance, who shoulder the burden.

Our own citizens. The ones who need help. If we have $98 million of their money to spend on health insurance, we should be spending it to help California’s citizens who can’t afford health care, or food, or rent, or an education.

And yes, while subsidized insurance for middle-income Californians is also part of the Newsom-Democrats’ plan, the fact remains they intend to take money out of the pockets of Californians who can’t afford insurance and funnel it toward insurance for illegal residents.

Compassion is one thing. But California’s priorities are upside down.

Republican Lawmakers React to $100 Million Budget Towards Medi-Cal for Illegal Aliens


California Governor Gavin Newsom’s first budget, estimated at $213 billion, has set aside nearly $100 million for illegal immigrants residing in the state, ages 19-25, to receive Medi-Cal coverage.

The Medi-Cal extension will make California the first state to provide health insurance for illegal aliens.

Supporters of the move, such as president and CEO of the non-profit organization California Health Care Foundation, Sandra R. Hernandez, MD, said it was only one small step in a vast progressive movement to provide health care to all Californians.

“While today is surely a moment worth celebrating, we must also acknowledge the work ahead,” said Hernandez in a statement. “We must find a way to cover all Californians, including the low-income undocumented adults and seniors who remain ineligible for Medi-Cal.”

Jay Obernolte (R-Big Bear Lake), California Assemblyman for the 33rd District and vice chair of the Budget Committee told The Epoch Times that he’s not in favor of using Californians’ tax dollars in this way.

“The big problem with the expansion of Medi-Cal is that we are already failing in our commitment to the Californians who are on that program,” he said.

“I represent a fairly rural part of the state. [Many of] my constituents are unable to access Medi-Cal when they are ill. So many physicians in my district are unable to accept the low reimbursement rates that are provided under Medi-Cal. You need a very large practice as a doctor to accept those reimbursement rates, and I don’t have many physicians [in my district] that are able to. When my constituents get sick, even though technically they’re covered, they can’t see a doctor.”

Obernolte argued that the state has an obligation to fix these problems before addressing healthcare for illegal aliens.

“We are trying to do what’s best, from a public policy standpoint for the people who already live here,” he said.

While Obernolte voiced his disagreement with the legislature’s passage of this provision, he did point out that many liberal lawmakers did not get everything they wanted.

“They were seeking to expand Medi-Cal eligibility to senior undocumented immigrants and that is something that the governor did not agree to,” he said.

When asked how his constituents felt about the budget allocations, Obernolte said they were overwhelmingly opposed to it.

“People [are] concerned about the overall costs, and [there are] constituents that are unconvinced that providing services to people who aren’t here legally is a good use of taxpayer resources,” he said.

The state budget, which also includes an individual mandate on health insurance, would obligate residents in the state to purchase health insurance. This measure was enacted as a means of countering Congressional Republicans’ removal of the national individual mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Revenue from this statewide mandate would be used to fund insurance premium subsidies for middle income people, including illegal aliens residing in the state.

State Senator John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) also weighed in on the controversial budget proposal.

“I am an immigrant,” he told The Epoch Times. “I came here in 1960 from the Netherlands. I am one of those legislators that tend to get a little offended when those that have not come through the front door are receiving benefits from the state.”

Moorlach further weighed in on the costs to the taxpayer as a result of this provision being enacted.

“The federal government has failed miserably at controlling our borders and now we have [these individuals] here and they are in our hospitals, in our emergency rooms. We have an industry that has been [weighed down] by subsidizing undocumented individuals. I understand maybe helping out a hospital association, but I think it’s a little offensive to most citizens that this is the approach that the governor wants to take.”

When asked about whether this allocation of Medi-Cal would attract more illegal immigration, Moorlach believed it possibly would.

“The question is Governor Newsom doing this out of exasperation or is he doing this [to try and] be hospitable to anybody that walks through the door? I tend to think it’s the latter, and that’s why it’s frustrating to my constituents. We’ve been getting a lot of calls from constituents arguing against medical benefits for undocumented immigrants.”

When asked as to whether this provision would add to the debt, Senator Moorlach pointed out that Betty Yee, the state’s Controller, highlighted the significant increase in the state deficit for this fiscal year.

“In the middle of the budget conference committee meetings, the State Controller, Betty Yee, released the comprehensive annual financial report for the year end of June 30th 2018. It was finally completed in the middle of June, a year later. [The report] will show you that the retiree medical liability for health benefits for state employees has increased by $44 billion and our unrestricted net deficit went up from $169.5 billion to $213 billion. The state not only this last week approved the largest budget in its history, but it’s also been notified that its unrestricted net deficit is also the largest in its history as well,” he said.

Moorlach also shed light on the statewide individual mandate and as to whether the penalty citizens will have to pay for not being insured will go towards paying for illegal aliens’ insurance.

“Ironically that seems to be the case,” he responded.

Senator Moorlach suggested that instead of being obstructive towards D.C., Sacramento should try to find the middle ground on this issue. “I think what the Governor should really be focused on is not just being antagonistic to the President, but maybe sending a blue-ribbon committee to work with D.C. to figure out how to get a pathway to citizenship.”

Governor Newsom’s budget was passed on June 13, sending it to Newsom for his signature. The Senate vote was 29-11, and the Assembly approved it 60-15, largely along party lines.


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — Measure EE Parcel Tax Rebuff — June 16, 2019

Happy Father’s Day!

Fathers are great about teaching us independence, allowing us to fail in order to learn valuable life lessons, and encouraging us to tough it out and see the task through to completion. Maybe that’s why my father took me backpacking. You learn to carry weight and to press on to the peak. No easy solutions. No pain, no gain.

In Sacramento, however, the solution to every concern seems to be a tax increase. Do you want to give better health care to undocumented immigrants? Then tax Californians who either can’t afford health care, or chose to be “naked,” with a mandate penalty. Want to give a larger earned income tax credit to the poor? Then make selected income tax conformity changes that raise enough in new income tax revenues from the hard working, sacrificial producers. Don’t worry that 17 percent of Californians pay 87 percent of the personal income tax.

For Los Angeles Unified School District, if you want to give a long overdue raise to the teachers, then ask the residents to vote themselves a tax increase. After all, renters wouldn’t be affected by a real estate parcel tax, right? Wrong.

You cannot have a combination of high salaries, excellent medical benefits, an attractive defined benefit pension plan, and lifetime health benefits (retiree medical). The math doesn’t work.

The teachers union needs to go to the bargaining table and make major modifications to the retiree medical plan. Orange County did in 2006 and reduced its unfunded liability by 71 percent. Following this approach would reduce LAUSD’s Other Post Employment Benefits by more than $10 billion. That would give some room for pay increases.

Modifying the defined benefit pension plan prospectively with the provision of a defined contribution plan option, or a blend of both, would also provide some funding for a pay raise.

Someone at LAUSD needs to do the heavy lifting, tough it out, and solve the math problem that was self created by the district. Going to the taxpayers only earns a failing grade.

The Los Angeles Daily News and the OC Register provide my perspective in the editorial submission below.

Measure EE’s defeat gives hope to California’s taxpayers


Howard Jarvis lives! The spirit of his Proposition 13 tax revolt in 1978 animated the June 4 demise of Measure EE in Los Angeles. Needing a two-thirds majority vote to win, it fell short by 21 points to garner only 46 percent.

“We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!” voters effectively shouted, echoing Jarvis’ signature phrase of rage.

Measure EE would have imposed a tax of $500 million a year on real-estate parcels. Voters rejected the contention the money was needed to patch up the failing Los Angeles Unified School District.

In January, the United Teachers of Los Angeles went out on strike for six days. The strike ended when the LAUSD agreed to a new contract with a 6 percent raise for teachers and a promise to support Measure EE and a statewide “split roll” property tax increase on the 2020 ballot that would sharply alter Proposition 13, the 1978 property tax limitation initiative.

But the money just would have gone to underfunded teacher pension plans.

The desperateness of Measure EE reminded me of the Measure R campaign in Orange County, a half-cent sales tax to fund a bailout. In 1994, as a candidate for county treasurer-tax collector, I warned incumbent Bob Citron’s risky investments were driving the county off a cliff. I also campaigned for a more prudent government and against tax increases.

Bankruptcy struck that December. Citron resigned. And the board of supervisors appointed me to the post.

Some county political and business leaders insisted tax increases were needed to “save” the county. They scheduled an election for June 27, 1995 on Measure R, a half-cent sales tax to fund a bailout.

I opposed the tax increase, which got just 39 percent of the vote, to 61 percent opposed. Similar to Measure EE, it fell short by 12 points of the majority needed.

The County of Orange and the cities and school districts slammed by the bankruptcy laid off hundreds of workers and tightened their belts in other ways. The county not only survived, it thrived.

Measure R’s defeat sent a hopeful message to businesses: Government mistakes will not result in slamming the private sector. Consequently, the OC remains the most business-friendly place in California. Measure EE’s demise is good news for taxpayers.

In 2020, state voters will get to decide whether to alter Proposition 13, the 1978 initiative that capped annual tax increases at 2 percent of assessed value on real property, until the property was sold. The proposed “split roll” ballot measure would allow steeper increases for commercial real property, although the residential taxation methodology would remain the same — for now. It’s projected about $10 billion more in taxes would be raised.

Unless homeowners bought before the gigantic price increases of recent years, it’s a myth Prop. 13 has kept property taxes low. Voters have approved numerous bonds and parcel taxes above and beyond the maximum 1 percent of the assessed value at acquisition allowed by Prop. 13 (compared to a state average of 2.6 percent before Prop. 13 passed).

Because of soaring property values, California also now ranks a high 17th among the states in per capita property tax payments, at $1,559 per capita. That’s up from a rank of 31st in 1996.

And let’s remember the main benefit of Prop. 13: tax stability. You know when you buy your home what property taxes will be five, 15 or 30 years down the road. There’s no surprise jump in the tax that drove many homeowners into foreclosures in the years before 1978. Business owners — employers — should continue enjoying the same stability.

It’s possible other tax increases could be put on the 2020 ballot, such as an estate tax. So let’s review what we already must put up with.

California’s top marginal tax rate of 13.3 percent is by far the highest of any state. Even the middle-class rate, beginning at about $55,000 of income, hits at a staggering 9.3 percent. Yet in the Bay Area now, the San Jose Mercury-News reported, even $400,000 in income leaves families “feeling strapped” because of high taxes, housing and other costs. Should they pay more taxes?

Taxes are not the solution, but the problem. You should vote against a “split roll” or any other tax on the ballot. Like abolitionist Wendell Phillips urged before the Civil War, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Never take a tax increase proposal lightly. Your prosperity may depend on it.

John M. W. Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, represents the 37th District in the California Senate.



This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — A Seriously Taxing Budget — June 14, 2019

Allow me to wish you a happy Flag Day!

I sit on the Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee as Vice Chair, and the Senate Select Committee on Wildfires (my paraphrase). I also sit on the Senate Budget & Fiscal Review Committee and just concluded serving on the Budget Conference Committee. I not only sit on these important bodies, but I attend the meetings and I review the materials beforehand and come prepared with questions.

With all the activity of meeting the house of origin and budget deadlines, we also squeezed in a SB 901 Commission Report Hearing (my paraphrase). The Commission on Catastrophic Wildfire Cost and Recovery prepared a report last Friday that was presented on Monday afternoon (see the Executive Summary at

Here is recommendation 4 (page 9):

Absent changes to the strict liability application of inverse condemnation, the legislature should consider establishing a large and broadly sourced Wildfire Victims Fund, to more quickly and equitably socialize wildfire costs, and maintain the heath of the state’s utilities.

What funding levels does this commission have in mind? Well, numbers like $30 billion, $40 billion and $50 billion were tossed around.

Was there anything remotely close to this in the Governor’s proposed budget? Perhaps starting with staff funding and some seed money? No. Not one dollar. If there was something of this nature, I didn’t see it. So, I mentioned it during the Wildfire Committee meeting. Call it my version of “where’s the beef?” The Sacramento Bee picks up the theme in the first piece below.

Personally, I’ve been working on efforts to mitigate the occurrence of wildfires for several years now. I’ll spare you the links, but this year’s effort was derailed by the Democrat leadership, as the Senate Committee on Appropriations put my Senate Bill 584 in suspense, thus killing it for this year (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Undergrounding In Paradise — May 28, 2019). It would have required the Public Utilities Commission “to direct electrical corporations to reallocate credits provided to a jurisdiction under the Rule 20A program for purposes” of undergrounding power lines (see It’s difficult to see the resolve from the Democrats when they scuttle an easy modification like this.

Politico, in the second piece below, provides its perspective on how difficult it was for the Democrats to raise taxes. With the enthusiasm they had for AB 74 yesterday morning, it sure did not seem like an agonizing vote for the majority party to pile on new taxes now. Like the cell phone tax and cherry-picking income tax conformity to have the middle class pay for a larger earned income tax credit.

Moreover, the Senate Governance and Finance Committee, another committee I serve on as Vice Chair, has not seen the tax conformity legislation that potentially raises more than $1.3 billion in taxes. Democrats plan to approve major tax legislation through a budget trailer bill without any input from a committee and an engaged public. This is outrageous.

Speaking of outrageous, I’m the legislator who asked the proverbial question Sunday evening, “What is the nexus between safe drinking water and cap and trade?” The answer has become fodder for pundits and editorial writers around the state this week. However, it was one way for the Democrats to avoid yet another special, but extremely regressive, tax on Californians.

Ponder this, because recent legislation to perpetuate cap and trade into the future was passed with a 2/3 vote, it’s an open question whether greenhouse gas reduction fund spending even has to be related to the intended programs it was designed for. The Democrats may have started down the slippery slope of using cap and trade tax revenues for anything in the future, seeing it as a new goose that is laying golden eggs to use with impunity.

A portion of my Floor speech yesterday morning closes the second piece, as I reminded my Democratic colleagues that voters soundly rejected a proposed parcel tax for Los Angeles Unified School District. The budget passed along party lines (see MOORLACH UPDATE — $214.8 Billion Budget Approved — June 13, 2019).

What’s the California Legislature doing about wildfires? Not much yet


When the Camp Fire destroyed the town of Paradise and killed 85 people last year, California legislative leaders vowed to make wildfires their top priority when they returned to work in December 2018.

Senate leader Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, told The Sacramento Bee wildfire issues would be “front and center” because “communities are being devastated,” while Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon cited the state’s housing crisis and wildfires as the two biggest problems lawmakers would focus on going into the legislative session.

But midway through 2019, California lacks a comprehensive plan to deal with the growing threat. It is still grappling with how to address an estimated $30 billion in liability costs incurred by PG&E in the Camp Fire and wine country fires of 2017.

A few dozen bills are under consideration, but few have been signed, as lawmakers seek to juggle the interests of ratepayers, utilities and insurance companies.

Experts warn of major consequences if the state doesn’t act quickly to update wildfire liability standards, stabilize homeowner insurance costs, encourage residents to make their homes more fire resistant and create a fund that balances the needs of ratepayers, utility companies and wildfire victims.

Michael Wara, director of Stanford University’s climate and energy policy program, has briefed lawmakers on their options. He said the state could end up owning electric power lines and exposed to liabilities if it doesn’t act soon.

“People are rightfully very angry at the utilities, so you’re working to stabilize these companies that have done wrong. It’s a really difficult political situation to resolve,” Wara said. “In order to not have this situation spin even further out of control, the folks in Sacramento are going to have to spend some political capital on this. This is about solving the problems that are complex and not always a win.”


State Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa, has been a leading voice on the issue of wildfires in the last couple years. He authored a law last year to make it easier for utilities to pass on liability costs to ratepayers – a measure that left PG&E wanting more. Dodd also introduced a bill this year to create a statewide wildfire warning center that has yet to reach the governor’s desk. He called the pace of addressing the wildfires “frustrating.”

“Why it’s taken maybe a little bit longer is we’re really resolute on trying to make sure that ratepayers and victims don’t get raked over the coals,” Dodd said. “If we were OK with just putting this all on ratepayers, we’d be done by now. We really would. It is critically important that we find a way through this with most of the liability being paid by the shareholders, and not ratepayers.”

PG&E’s decision to file for bankruptcy in January has made it more difficult for California lawmakers to recover damages for victims, said Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo.

“We’re struggling with the bankruptcy,” he said. “We have been victimized by the system in a lot of ways, and PG&E has continued to take that easy road and not stand up to their liability.”

PG&E spokesman James Noonan said in a statement that the company “remains focused on resolving wildfire victims’ claims fairly and expeditiously.”

Behind the scenes, Newsom is working with lawmakers to get a bill onto his desk by July 12 — the final day before the Legislature takes a month-long summer recess. Newsom outlined this timeline during an April 12 news conference, saying he wanted to “get something big done” before the break.

In response, ratings agencies are pressuring the state to reduce risks for utility companies like Sempra within the next month. In a seven-page report circulated to lawmakers last week, S&P Global warned it would likely downgrade ratings of electric utilities, unless California took steps to reduce companies’ credit risks.

“Unless legislation passes that reduces the credit risks to California’s electric utilities, our current expectation would be to downgrade the utilities at or around July 12,” analyst Gabe Grosberg wrote in the report.

Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, called the July 12 deadline “arbitrary” and criticized the ratings agency for being “aggressive in what they think can be done by a state government.”

Still, he was disappointed by what he saw as a limited focus on wildfires in recent budget negotiations.

“Where’s the seriousness of it all?” Moorlach said. “I know the governor wants to get something done, but I’m not finding it. … The Democrats aren’t showing a real priority to dealing with wildfires.”


So far, Newsom has created a strike force that outlined three major options for handling utilities’ liability costs.

He issued a March executive order to expedite wildfire prevention efforts. The budget he will soon sign has $127 million for federal air tankers and helicopter replacement and $236 million for wildfire prevention and recovery efforts. It also includes $10 million for Camp Fire recovery and $32 million to support local governments who lost property tax revenue.

“The governor has made expanding the state’s wildfire prevention, safety and mitigation capacity a top priority,” said a statement from Brian Ferguson, a spokesman for Newsom. “The administration is committed to working expeditiously to forge a path toward a safe, reliable and affordable clean energy future.”

Though Newsom has taken some concrete steps, he hasn’t promoted aggressive legislative proposals. Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-Santa Rosa, authored a bill that would’ve established a $1 billion fund for eligible homeowners to retrofit their houses to make them more fireproof.

When Newsom unveiled his revised budget in May, he acknowledged the importance of making homes more fire resistant but questioned how to pay for it. Asked if he anticipated getting something done this year, he punted the issue to top Democratic lawmakers.

“We’ll see what we can do, and I look forward to seeing where the leadership is and what their other priorities are,” Newsom said.

Wood’s proposal was amended last month to remove all of the money.

Patrick McCallum, a veteran lobbyist who lost his home and nearly lost his life to the 2017 Tubbs Fire, now serves as co-president of Up from the Ashes — an advocacy group representing wildfire victims. While he acknowledges that PG&E’s bankruptcy has created some complications, he wants utility companies and lawmakers to act more quickly.

“There are victims suffering now,” McCallum said. “PG&E and Edison need to step up, and the state needs to step up.”

A strong majority of Californians are also concerned. A recent poll from the Public Policy Institute of California found that 78% of residents worry about more expensive electricity bills due to utilities’ responsibilities for wildfire damage costs.

Californians are more divided on Newsom’s handling of the PG&E bankruptcy and utilities’ responsibilities, with 32% of adults approving of his performance on the issue, 30% disapproving and 38% unsure. The margin of error was 3.3 percentage points.

Mark Baldassare, president of PPIC, said the numbers reflect a desire from the public for lawmakers to stabilize utility rates and for the governor to more clearly explain what he’s doing to address the issue.

“The poll suggests it’s a topic which people feel may literally hit home,” Baldassare said. “It’s definitely something that speaks to the fact that the Legislature will need to act on this issue but tread lightly because it could have personal and political consequences. It also shows a lack of communication on the part of the governor at this point.”


Over the next month, lawmakers will seriously consider three recommendations from Newsom’s strike force that address California’s imminent wildfire liability threats.

One action the state could take is creating a “liquidity-only fund.” The fund would offer utilities a way to pay out wildfire damage claims while awaiting a determination from the state’s public utilities commission on cost recovery.

Another option for the state is to adopt a fault-based standard that would shift the risk of property loss to insurance companies and homeowners who are either under-insured or without insurance. But some worry this change would do less to hold utility companies accountable.

Finally, the state could create a catastrophic wildfire fund to spread liability costs more broadly among ratepayers, insurance companies and utilities.

Dodd said “it’s a little too early to tell right now” which, if any, of these options the state will choose.

“We’re getting continued analysis on each,” he added.

Newsom signaled last month that he’s reluctant to lower PG&E’s liability standard. Atkins, Rendon and Newsom wrote in a joint statement that it would instead pursue the liquidity fund option and allow cost recovery for electricity providers that “act responsibly and in the public’s best interest.”

Wara said it’s essential for lawmakers to act quickly.

“Next week, it’ll be go time…,” Wara said. “This month is going to be incredibly important. Ultimately, it’s really hard to have a state function effectively in the 21st century without affordable, reliable electricity. That is in jeopardy for the state right now. Make no mistake: We need to solve this problem or much worse things are going to happen.”

Taxes no slam dunk for California Democrats despite supermajority control


Six months and one budget into California’s experiment with single-party dominance, legislative Democrats are casting a wary eye at new taxes and fees.

They wield supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature that allow them to pass taxes without Republican input. But if the reflexive expectation from this era of Democratic hegemony was a flurry of new taxes and fees, the reality so far has been more restrained as calls for new revenue sources have been tempered by fear of political fallout.

Legislative Democrats pushed back on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature push to fund clean drinking water with a new tax on users, instead coalescing around a proposalto rely on greenhouse gas funds. Newsom’s call to pay for an expanded earned income tax credit by conforming California taxes to federal law also met resistance, as it would increase taxes on some business activities. The latter issue is the biggest remaining barrier to finishing the budget before the fiscal year starts July 1.

Legislators, staffers and political operatives all pointed to a prevailing wariness among legislative Democrats — many of them first-term members who rode a blue wave to claim formerly Republican districts — to compromise their reelection chances by playing into a ready-made narrative of an overreaching supermajority piling on new taxes.

The specter of former state Sen. Josh Newman hangs over the Legislature. A Democrat in a battleground district, Newman was ousted in a recall election after he voted for a gas tax increase pushed by legislative leaders and then-Gov. Jerry Brown. It was the first time in a generation that a sitting legislator had been recalled, and Democrats are not eager to see a repeat.

“You have members who are in districts that are not traditionally Democratic districts. You have some new members representing areas that aren’t quite tax-friendly — those members look at someone like Josh Newman and say, ‘I don’t want that to happen to me,’” said Republican political consultant Matt Rexroad. “It is a reminder that tax increases can be a serious, serious issue for voters in certain parts of the state.”

It hasn’t exclusively been a matter of legislative caution. Lawmakers wanted to go further than Newsom on expanding Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants, pushed for more generous health insurance subsidies and backed a fee on phone bills to pay for a 911 system revamp.

Newsom himself has demonstrated he’s keenly aware of the political peril in overzealous budgeting, emphasizing a message of caution and warning against too much ongoing spending. He told POLITICO that legislators have been on board.

“I have got to give the Legislature a lot of credit. Their parameters were similar to mine: we’re going to hold the line. We get it. A lot of these folks lived through the last recession,” Newsom said, adding that “we’re proving a different governing paradigm. It used to be ‘tax and spend liberal.’ It no longer is.”

But the governor did want to tax water customers and spend the proceeds on cleaning up contaminated drinking water systems, framing the issue as a moral imperative. The result was perhaps the most prominent source of early friction between the governor’s office and Legislature.

While Assembly leadership embraced the governor’s proposal, a moderate Assembly Democrat floated an alternate idea to eliminate a tax deduction for gamblers.It became clear early on that the Senate would struggle to musterthe votes, and in the end the Senate’s proposal to use money from California’s cap-and-trade fund rather than tax users prevailed — a decision that drew criticism from legislative Democrats who complained of misusing the climate fund.

“This body’s very mindful about fee increases and tax increases,” Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins said on the Senate floor. “It’s why we approached the water issue in the way that we did.”

Newsom has said he was ultimately agnostic about how to pay for clean water, but the outcome illuminated the dynamics in the Legislature. Several members are in the first months of new terms after winning formerly Republican seats or defeating more-liberal Democrats in intraparty contests.

Assemblyman Jim Cooper (D-Elk Grove), a moderate Democrat, said “some members are a little skittish” about raising taxes despite a surplus, saying fears about inflicting additional harm on low-income people extend beyond the water tax.

“I think there are quite a few — not to single out any one tax in particular,” he said. “People are leery about raising taxes because some people are still struggling. They never recovered from the economic meltdown.”

Assembly Democrats further demonstrated their resistanceto new tax measures when Newsom’s chief of staff Ann O’Leary attended a closed-door caucus meeting and promoted the governor’s plan to fortify a state earned income tax credit by aligning California’s tax code with federal changes, which could generate billions in new revenue.

Democrats balked, according to multiple attendees, voicing concerns that ranged from not wanting to deliver Trump a victory to questioning the tax pursuit when California enjoys a surplus. A common denominator, lawmakers said, was frustration at the governor’s office pushing vulnerable legislators into a tax vote.

“The optics aren’t good,” a moderate Assembly member told POLITICO after the meeting, asking to remain anonymous to discuss a closed-door meeting.

Even as the main budget bill passed easily on Thursday, legislators were still negotiating with Newsom’s office over the conformity issue. The fact that Democrats pushed back on conformity — an idea that has Republican support and that doesn’t produce the type of campaign sound bites as a water or gas tax — speaks to lingering nervousness about tax issues in general, said Democratic political consultant Andrew Acosta.

“I haven’t seen that direct connection where this has the same oomph as the gas tax did, especially in these swing districts,” Acosta said. “It’s not like the Howard Jarvis [Taxpayers Association] folks are going crazy beating up on people over tax conformity.”

Beyond the budget talks, Sacramento has repeatedly demonstrated the long odds facing tax proposals even with two-thirds majorities in both houses.

Perennial proposals to tax sugary drinks and impose an oil severance tax withered, as did bills to impose an excise tax on gun purchases and increase a fee on tire purchases.

A proposed constitutional amendment that would have lowered the threshold for voter-approved school parcel taxes stalled. Weeks after a state senator shelved the bill, voters underscored the political arduousnessof such levies by decisively rejecting a proposed Los Angeles parcel tax despite heavy support from school officials and Mayor Eric Garcetti.

“We’re just adding more taxes,” Republican state Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) warned on the Senate floor on Thursday, citing the phone surcharge, the health insurance penalty and a bump in income taxes from “cherry-picking tax conformity opportunities” to fund tax credits.

“And yet just earlier this month the residents of a district with more than 4 million residents, the LA Unified School District, voted down Measure EE, saying ‘we don’t want another tax if you’re not managing your money properly,’” he said.

Mackenzie Mays and Angela Hart contributed to this report.


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — $214.8 Billion Budget Approved — June 13, 2019

Today the legislature approved the Budget Bill, AB 74, down party lines, 29-11. In anticipation of this budget vote, Techwire provides the details of items focused on information technology and is the first piece below.

In the second piece below, California Globe provides the pork in the proposed budget going to Democratic Districts. These items literally showed up last Sunday evening at the Budget Conference Committee meeting and the six Democrats provided the necessary votes on each item listed.

Associated Press sets up this morning’s budget vote in the third piece below.

The fourth and final piece below is hot-off-the-press from The Sacramento Bee and The Tribune of San Luis Obispo. Someone made a request for $1 million for Lions Park in Costa Mesa, but it was not me.

25th Anniversary Look Back

Derivatives Week announced the election results in their June 13, 1994 edition. Shortly after the Orange County debacle later that year, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement Number 31, requiring government investment pools to mark to market.

John Moorlach, a certified public accountant and financial planner from Costa Mesa, Calif., blamed his campaign failure to voter disinterest in the issue of derivatives.

“Talking about derivatives became a MEGO thing–my eyes glaze over,” Moorlach said. He said he tried to warn voters about the risks of having a highly leveraged portfolio, citing the example of Procter & Gamble’s recent $157 million loss, which was incurred closing out two highly leveraged swaps. Had Moorlach won, he would have unwound existing derivatives positions as quickly as possible and marked the portfolio to market, he said.

For the last Look Back, MOORLACH UPDATE — Clean Drinking Water Funding — June 11, 2019.

Innovation Office, DMV Do Well in Budget’s Final Days

The Legislature isn’t expected to approve the new state budget until later this week but so far, three areas of IT initiatives are getting a majority of the funding that leaders sought.


The state’s 2019-2020 budget should contain funding for several of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s key tech projects — but which projects and exactly how much money won’t be certain until the Legislature adopts it, by Saturday, as required by law.

The new fiscal year begins July 1 with, for state government, an emphasis on tech that’s undeniably more urgent than under Newsom’s predecessor, Jerry Brown. And Newsom, who wrote a book on tech, Citizenville: How to Take the Town Square Digital and Reinvent Government, and is considered by some to be the tech governor, is getting the funding and staffing he sought from the Legislature in at least three areas. Here’s what is known, following a budget adoption Sunday by the California Legislature’s Conference Committee on the Budget:

  • Newsom should largely get the Office of Digital Innovation (ODI) he proposed in January. The budget can still be amended, but committee members approved giving ODI 50 positions, 20 of which will be exempt. The budget in print also allocates more than $26.1 million to stand up ODI — although $10 million of that is provided in a revolving fund “to assist entities.” The fund could be tapped by ODI as needed for purchases, and replenished in turn by billing state agencies for its services. That’s a far cry from the $10 million and 10 people recommended last month by an Assembly subcommittee. Techwire should have more ODI specifics later this week.
  • The Department of Motor Vehicles’ (DMV) budget appears to have also fared well, according to committee documentation. Members approved $242.1 million in FY 2019-2020 and $199.8 million in FY 2020-2021 for Real ID compliance and DMV reform and improvement, both amounts sought by Newsom. The committee approved spending just under $17 million in FY 2019-2020 and around $8 million in FY 2020-2021 on IT improvements. It also approved spending around $14 million in FY 2019-2020 and around $10 million in FY 2020-2021 on expanding a customer relationship management (CRM) live-chat system.

But the budget calls on DMV to provide monthly reports on “any technology outages in field offices” and on its progress in hiring a permanent director. The budget requires monthly reports on any additional money needed to meet Real ID workload demands; the number of Real IDs processed; and a “projection of the number of Real IDs” DMV estimates will need to be processed by the Oct. 1, 2020, federal deadline — and through the end of calendar year 2020. In an interview with Techwire, state Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, a committee member, criticized DMV for having “failed to get in front of” the Real ID rollout, but suggested technology may show the way forward.

“Let’s take advantage of whatever IT technology opportunities we have,” Moorlach said. “Make it simple; make it fast. There’s no reason why we can’t do what the private sector’s doing. And we should be outsourcing more. How do we utilize the Auto Club more effectively, and how do we incentivize opportunities for others to be subcontracted?”

  • A new wildfire tech procurement tipped in February continues to have funding proposed in the budget’s May revision. The committee approved a one-time $15 million General Fund increase to “enable Cal Fire [the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection] to procure innovative solutions to combat the state’s wildfire crisis.” The effort is guided by Newsom’s Jan. 8 executive order mandating “a new flexible approach to procurement called RFI2 or Request for Innovative Ideas.”

The funding targets “contracts for one or more Proof of Concept vendors,” and can be augmented by the state Department of Finance by up to $35 million. However, the budget in print indicates Cal Fire shall not enter into procurement contracts for the solutions with cumulative ongoing yearly costs of more than $10 million “until the necessary funding has been approved by the Legislature through the regular budget process.”

  • Sunday’s vote, by a 10-member bipartisan committee, melded Democratic and Republican thought, with certain areas referring to “Conference Compromise.” Following the committee’s vote, the budget went into print Monday morning. It must remain “in print” for three days, after which time — mid-morning on Thursday — the full Legislature will have until day’s end Saturday to approve the budget. Then, it will head to Newsom for a signature.

In a statement Sunday, Newsom said he appreciated the committee’s hard work in approving a budget that “is balanced, creates historic reserves and expands budget resiliency.”

“It also invests in emergency preparedness and response, provides sustainable funding for safe drinking water, and includes important funding augmentations to address the cost crisis in our state — tax cuts for small businesses and working families, expanded health care subsidies, historic funding for our schools and funding to serve more students at UC and CSU,” Newsom said. A representative of the governor’s office told Techwire via email that the agency had “nothing further to share.”

image 12

Record Pork Barrel Projects in California’s Largest State Budget in Many Years

Part l: Pet projects by lawmakers to bring money home to the district

By Katy Grimes

Pork Barrel projects are a usual occurrence in the state budget, but California hasn’t see pork added on like this in years. To understand how government spending sprees occur every fiscal year, this is how spending takes place.

Pork barrel is the expression used to explain the appropriation of government spending for pet projects by lawmakers (some good, some not), secured solely to bring money to a lawmaker’s district.

California’s largest state budget ever — $214 billion — is larded with a record number of local pork-barrel projects injected by individual legislators, often in exchange for “horse trading”  votes on passage of certain pieces of legislation.

The Legislature has already passed the bulk of the budget, which is expected to be signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom. But it is filled with more pork than ever — those pet projects that lawmakers love — costing California taxpayers billions. The following lists show many projects in individual legislators’ districtsm approved by the Conference Committee on the Budget.

There is pork in every aspect of this budget: General Government Augmentations in 2019-20 Budget, Education, Resources and Transportation, Health and Human Services, and Public Safety.

This article will address the General Government Pork in 2019-20 Budget – nearly $150 million of extras:

TOTAL $149,270,000,000 million

image 13

California lawmakers poised to approve $214.8 billion budget


California lawmakers are poised to approve a framework for a $214.8 billion operating budget on Thursday, the first step in a spending package that seeks to address the teacher shortage, expand health care to some adults living in the country illegally and bolster the state’s top firefighting agency following the most devastating wildfire season in state history.

State law requires lawmakers to pass the framework by midnight Saturday. If they don’t, they don’t get paid. Lawmakers reached an agreement on Sunday night and scheduled a vote for Thursday, days ahead of the deadline.

“I do think it’s a good budget,” said state Sen. Holly Mitchell, a Los Angeles Democrat and chairwoman of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee. “In every budget there is good and there is could be better.”

The massive bill, totaling more than 900 pages, directs tax dollars in the state’s most populous state. But lawmakers must still pass more than a dozen other bills to implement the budget. These “trailer bills” could contain important details, including implementing a monthly fee on cellphone bills to pay for upgrades to the 911 system.

The spending plan is the first under Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has positioned himself as resistor-in-chief to Republican President Donald Trump’s administration.

The Trump administration has sought to weaken former President Barack Obama’s health care law by eliminating a tax on people who refuse to purchase private health insurance. The budget under Newsom would bring that tax back, using part of the money to make California the first state in the country to help middle class families pay a portion of their monthly health insurance premiums.

While the Trump administration continues to crack down on illegal immigration, the budget lawmakers are set to vote on Thursday would make California the first state to give some adults living in the country illegally government-funded health insurance.

Health care for people living in the country illegally is part of Democrats’ plan to eventually get everyone in California to have health insurance. But the policy has angered Republican lawmakers, who argue it’s not fair to tax people in the country legally for not buying health insurance while making people living in the country illegally eligible for taxpayer-funded health insurance.

“I just don’t get the prioritization,” said Republican state Sen. John Moorlach of Costa Mesa, who noted he legally immigrated to the United States from the Netherlands in 1960.

The budget includes increases in public education, bringing the state spending to $12,018 for every student in K-12 public schools. It would give students studying to be teachers grants of up to $20,000 if they promise to teach subject matters impacted by the teacher shortage, including science, technology, math and engineering.

And following the states deadliest wildfire season in history, the spending plan includes $40.3 million for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to buy 13 new fire engines and hire 131 people to operate them. It also includes $13.1 million to accept seven used C-130 air tankers from the federal government. The air tankers are free, but the state must pay to maintain and operate them.

image 5

The Tribune

Dog parks, playgrounds and a theater: California budget loaded with earmarks


California lawmakers are set to send a nearly $215 billion budget to Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday, and Republicans in the minority are criticizing hundreds of millions dollars in earmarks for community projects around the state that include dog parks and a sculpture garden.

More than $40 million will go to projects in Senate leader Toni Atkins’s hometown, San Diego. The city stands to gain a wide range of projects, including $21 million for a downtown railroad crossing, $8.7 million for unnamed projects in Balboa Park, $7.3 million to demolish a building at a state historic park, $5 million to prevent suicides along a local bridge and $500,000 for a dog park.

“Years of responsible budgeting, wise decisions by the voters, and a strong economy powered by our small businesses have allowed us not only to significantly increase our budget reserves and strengthen vital state programs, but also to invest directly in our communities,” Atkins said in a statement. “Local governments and organizations have created projects that improve the quality of life in our region and the Legislature and the governor are proud to be able to partner with them.”

Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon will get $700,000 in the budget for the city of Lakewood to invest in “community facilities, park, or recreational facilities construction, acquisition, or improvements.”

Rendon’s spokesman, Kevin Liao, said the funding was necessary because “these are all needed projects and help local communities who are thus gaining benefits from the taxes they pay.”

Republicans consider spending for such local projects largely unnecessary, and refer to the projects as “pork.” They’re highlighting a range from worth about $150 million to $425 million, depending on which items from the budget are included.

“I see a lot of money going to all kinds of district for pork,” said Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, whose district will benefit from a $1 million grant approved for a city park.

Regardless of the amount, the state party is more concerned about the process through which these proposals were included in the final budget.

“There needs to be more transparency in the process,” said a statement from Matt Fleming, spokesman for the California GOP. “This is not how effective governments are run.”

California projects that it will accumulate a nearly $22 billion surplus over the next year, and it anticipates building up its reserves to about $20 billion.

Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez, R-Lake Elsinore, mocked some of the earmarks in remarks on the Assembly floor, contending the money could be put to better uses.

“Maybe our homeless veterans can sleep in a sculpture garden, or a dog park,” she said.

Budgets have traditionally included plenty of money that Democrats and Republicans want to put back into their own districts for special projects. This year’s budget is no exception.

Lawmakers will vote to spend $3 milllon on a dog park in Rancho Cucamonga and $2.5 million on a new elevator at the California Science Center in Los Angeles. The budget also gives $2 million to the Latino Theater Company, $1.1 million to San Francisco for construction on two LGBTQ spaces and $950,000 to a pair of senior centers.

Sacramento is also the beneficiary of several earmarks, including $1.5 million to study the scope of sex-trafficking in the city, $750,000 for Pannell Center Summer Nights and $354,000 for a parking structure on R Street.


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach

MOORLACH UPDATE — Clean Drinking Water Funding — June 11, 2019

Interview requests regarding the state’s Budget Conference Committee and various components of the budget continue.

The Associated Press picked up on one short question that I asked Sunday evening when the compromise on the Cap and Trade spending was before us. “What is the nexus between Cap and Trade and drinking water?” The answer was very weak, as the amount of greenhouse gases that will be avoided is de minimis. But, this hair-brained approach solved the tension about the Governor wanting to impose a water tax, so I left well enough alone. It’s provided in the Miami Herald piece, which is the first one below.

When is a good time to ask for tax increases? During a recession? Probably not. During a bumper crop year? Maybe. I’ll have to assume that the Governor believes now is the time to take the virtual pedal to the metal. The next shoe to drop? Higher electricity rates to start and fill a fund for utility caused wildfire in order to provide for victim reimbursements. The Mercury News provides the first shoe in the second piece below. I did not see the 9-1-1 tax included in the final budget documents, so stay tuned.

The third piece below provides a good recap by the California Globe. The “tax conformity” proposal between the Federal tax bill and the state’s version looks like a cherry-picked proposal similar to heads I win, tails you lose. The state will take revenue enhancements in order to pay for the expanded earned income tax credit.

Hold on to your wallets. It looks like we will be voting on the budget on the Senate Floor after 10:18 a.m., thus meeting the 72-hour in print rule.

25th Anniversary Look Back

In the June 11, 1994 edition of the Daily Pilot, liberal columnist Fred Martin was back with his vitriol over campaign season. This time because I had purchased space on a Democrat slate mailer. That Martin received the mailer confirmed his party registration. And, it gave him another opportunity to throw a punch.

Slate mailers are just advertising opportunities. Candidates pay to be on them. And, I was encouraged to purchase onto a Democrat slate. The joys.

To reiterate, it was the incumbent who made an issue of partisanship, not me. I focused on the investment strategy. But, if you weren’t watching closely, you fell for this clever diversion by Mr. Citron. The irony is that I have wonderful relationships with my Democrat friends.

John Moorlach, who failed to oust county Treasurer-Tax Collector Bob Citron, kicked up a big fuss because Citron is a Democrat. [Getting] his name and mug shot in a “Democratic Voter Guide,” on the front of the mailer was a photo of John Kennedy and the paean, “Continue the Democratic Tradition.” Inside was a laundry list of candidates to vote for, led by such well-known conservatives as Kathleen Brown, Gray Davis, Michael Woo and David Roberti.

For the last Look Back, go to MOORLACH UPDATE — Biggest Budget, Biggest Deficit — June 10, 2019 .

California taps clean air money

to pay for drinking water


California legislative leaders agreed Sunday to spend $130 million a year to improve water systems in communities where people can’t drink from their taps, something Democratic leaders say amounts to a crisis in one of the nation’s wealthiest states.

To pay for it, the state would tap a fund dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a move that alarmed some environmental activists who say its set up an unfair choice between clean air and water.

“What kind of choice is that?” said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California. “People shouldn’t have to choose between clean water and clean air.”

The plan is part of the state’s $213 billion budget and is a compromise between legislative leaders and new Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. Newsom had originally proposed a 95-cent tax on most residential water bills to pay for the fund. But lawmakers rejected that proposal, fearing political consequences of creating a new tax in a year when officials estimate the state will have a $21.5 billion surplus.

Instead, legislative leaders on Sunday agreed to take the money from the state’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. Through its cap and trade program, California requires its big polluters, like oil refineries and farms, to buy credits that let them pollute.

Becky Quintana is glad lawmakers found a way to fund water improvements, regardless of where the money is coming from. She lives in Seville, a town of less than 500 people in California’s Central Valley where the local elementary school relies on a grant to bring in bottled water for the students. Some days, she said, the school has to cancel classes because they can’t flush the toilets.

“People chose water over air, right? I mean I would,” Quintana said Monday at the state Capitol in Sacramento, joining other activists in light blue “Thirsty for Justice” T-shirts as they held a rally to pressure lawmakers into approving the funding. “We need the money. We need water.”

To pay for the water improvements, budget writers are taking money away from the agricultural industry, which uses it for activities such as upgrading diesel engines and reducing methane pollution. Lawmakers voted to cut that funding from $284 to $127 million.

About $100 million of that would go to a new clean drinking water fund, according to a document provided by the state Assembly. Another $30 million would come from the state’s general fund.

The money would not build things, but it would help some distressed public water systems with their operating costs. The goal is to avoid situations like 2007, when officials in the rural Central Valley community of Lanare had to shut down a new water treatment plant because they could not afford to run it.

California’s cap-and-trade program is the backbone of the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The state has already achieved its goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels and is attempting to go 40% below that level by 2030. The program has generated more than $9.5 billion since its inception, according to a 2019 annual report.

The state uses money from the program to pay for projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions or improving the environment and public health. Some of the money, for example, goes to the high-speed rail project that would run electric trains, ideally reducing transportation emissions. California law also requires 35% of the proceeds be spent on low-income and other disadvantaged communities.

Republican Sen. John Moorlach from Costa Mesa was skeptical about the connection between clean drinking water and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

But Newsom’s administration said when communities with unsafe drinking water have to bring in lots of bottled water, it clogs the roads with big trucks that pollute the air.

Sen. Bill Monning, a Democrat from Carmel who authored a bill to direct how the money would be spent, said greenhouse gas emissions have caused climate change, which has caused an increase of naturally occurring contaminants in drinking water like arsenic and lead.

“It’s directly connected,” he said. “Without climate change, without greenhouse gas emissions, you don’t have this immediate public health crisis.”

But many drinking water problems are connected with pollution from the state’s massive agricultural industry, whose heavy use of fertilizers and other chemicals have seeped into the drinking water of nearby communities. That’s why lawmakers have tentatively agreed to take most of the money from the agriculture industry’s portion of the greenhouse gas fund.

Emily Rooney, president of the Agricultural Council of California, called it “a creative solution for the drinking water crisis.”

“Obviously we want to protect our ag programs in the greenhouse gas reduction fund, but this is also a serious commitment on behalf of the governor to resolve a problem that definitely needs to be addressed,” she said. “I’m not going to get in the way of that.”

California budget: More than $2 billion in new state taxes even with $21 billion surplus?

New hikes for health insurance mandate, 911 system upgrades

By John Woolfolk

Gov. Gavin Newsom is in an enviable position: a record surplus of $21.5 billion in his first proposed budget.

But as his plan moves toward the June 15 deadline for approval by a friendly Legislature dominated by his fellow Democrats, Republicans and taxpayer advocates are pushing back against what they say are more than $2 billion in new taxes and other levies tucked within the voluminous document.

“Despite a budget surplus of $22 billion,” the governor is asking for billions in new taxes, said Senate Republican Leader Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield. “California is already unaffordable for too many people.”

The bulk of that revenue comes from $1.7 billion in “tax conformity” proposals to align California’s tax rules with the major changes made to the federal tax code by President Trump and Republicans in Congress in late 2017.

The budget also includes $300 million from a health insurance mandate — a tax penalty aimed at keeping insurance premiums in check by spurring the healthy who spurn coverage into buying a plan — and $200 million from a revised tax to bolster the 911 emergency system, Grove said.

Another Newsom proposal to raise $200 million from taxes on water bills, milk and fertilizer to fix contaminated drinking water systems in disadvantaged communities around the state died in a legislative committee over the weekend.

Kevin Liao, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, countered that much of the surplus goes toward bolstering budget reserves and paying down debt and pension liabilities so the state can better weather an eventual economic downturn. He said the criticism is premature with the budget still in final negotiations over the next week.

“It’s not that there’s a ton of new ongoing spending being proposed,” Liao said. “A lot of it is one-time spending.”

Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer quibbled with the characterization of some of those measures as taxes, which require a two-thirds vote for approval. He said the Legislative Counsel concluded a third of the dozen measures in the tax conformity package can be approved on a simple majority vote.

Palmer said he expects the Legislative Counsel to make a similar finding on the health insurance mandate, though he conceded the proposed 911 measure will require two-thirds votes.

The budget surplus and tax talk are in stark contrast to the situation former Gov. Jerry Brown confronted when he took office in 2011. Brown faced a $26.6 billion deficit. He resisted the Legislature’s call for new taxes, and the approved budget included some $15 billion in cuts. Brown later won voter approval for new taxes and, along with the improving economy, the state’s finances turned around.

Democrats now have enough votes to pass taxes over GOP opposition. Though Newsom cautioned about the threat of another recession, for now the state’s coffers are overflowing.

Newsom’s budget described the tax conformity package, which would include “flexibility for small businesses, capital gains deferrals and exclusions for Opportunity Zones and limitations on fringe benefit deductions,” among other measures, as “beneficial to California.” Those proposals have not been agreed on by the legislature and are expected to be debated in the coming days. The governor wants to use the revenue to pay for an expansion of tax credits for low-income Californians.

Some taxpayer advocates have withheld criticism on the conformity proposals for now, which they say offer potential benefits in simplification for taxpayers.

“The conformity package is intended to be tax neutral — meaning the overall effect is that it does not increase taxes or decrease taxes on taxpayers in the aggregate,” said California Taxpayers Association President Rob Gutierrez.

The proposed state health insurance mandate is modeled on the discontinued federal requirement under the Affordable Care Act. It would pay for raising and expanding subsidies through Covered California — the state’s insurance marketplace established under the ACA.

The proposed 911 tax would pay for improvements to the state’s 911 emergency reporting system, allowing the Office of Emergency Services to begin upgrading the California Public Safety Microwave Network to a digital system to enhance emergency response communications.

Newsom’s proposed budget said that a more stable funding structure will allow OES to fully implement a statewide Next Generation 911 system. Benefits would include faster call delivery, increased routing accuracy, call overflow and backup systems, updated geographic information capability and wireless location data, and incoming text capability.

Liao said the proposal merely modernizes a fee structure that has grown outdated as consumers abandon landlines for cell phones.

The Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund tax that Newsom had proposed would have put a levy on water bills — perhaps $1 a month — and on fertilizer and dairy to provide funding for the State Water Resources Control Board to help impoverished communities, mostly in the Central Valley, pay for water quality improvements.

The tax had been met with controversy and opposition from lawmakers of both parties, and was excluded from the budget agreement announced by a legislative conference committee Sunday. Instead, according to the compromise, much of the money for the water quality projects will come from the state’s cap-and-trade program.

“Even the poor (would have had) to pay that tax,” said Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, a member of the Budget Conference Committee. “I think everyone has communicated to Gov. Newsom that it would be a bad idea.”

California voters’ appetite for new taxes remains an open question. They overwhelmingly approved Brown’s call for higher sales and income taxes with Proposition 30 in 2012, and in 2016 endorsed keeping the higher income taxes another dozen years with Prop 55.

Southern California voters last June recalled Democratic state Senator Josh Newman over his support for a new gas tax, but voters statewide rejected November’s Proposition 6 to repeal that tax, which will add 5.6 cents to the price of a gallon starting in July.

Earlier this week, voters in the massive Los Angeles Unified School District panned a proposed parcel tax, with just 45 percent in favor of Measure EE, well short of the two-thirds margin needed for approval. Jon Coupal, with the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, said that may give lawmakers pause as they ponder new tax hikes.

“We’ve got a $22 billion surplus, revenue remains strong, so the threshold question is why are we discussing any tax hikes,” said Coupal. “The state is pretty flush.”

Gavin Newsom’s California Budget: Undocumented Immigrants Will Get Health Care Coverage

Water tax abandoned, tax credit credit for low-income people

By Katy Grimes

California Democrats reached a budget deal late Sunday agreeing to pay for undocumented immigrants living in the country illegally to have full health benefits, while abandoning the $140 million water tax on residential customers.

Undocumented immigrants between the ages of 19 and 25 will be eligible for Medi-Cal, California’s health insurance program for the poor, disabled, and now for those living in the country and state illegally.

State officials estimate about 90,000 additional people will quality at a cost of $98 million per year, AP reported.

Gov. Gavin Newsom announced his plan in January to bring back the Affordable Care Act for Californians — Obama mandated health care — as well as cover the health care of young undocumented immigrants. “Newsom’s plan to reinstate the individual mandate to force healthy people to buy the state health insurance, is one way to fund this,” California Globe reported. The individual mandate imposes a hefty tax on those who choose not to buy health insurance.

Unresolved is Newsom’s plan to provide $800 million in tax refunds for low-income people – a state EITC – earned income tax credit, which provides an earnings subsidy to low income families with one child. To pay for this refund, Newsom proposed adopting some of the Trump federal tax code changes – and limiting deductions for business losses. Trump’s 2017 tax law cut the corporate tax rate, reduced personal rates across the board, and did away with the State-and-Local-Tax deduction known as the SALT deduction.

Public schools are always one of the state’s biggest budget slices. In Newsom’s budget California public schools will receive $102 billion next year. “When all funding sources are accounted for (federal, state and local), the budget package includes $97.2 billion for TK–12 education,” the California Department of Education reported last year.

Gov. Newsom proposed in his May Budget Revise $650 million in additional grants to homelessness agencies and local government to help fund emergency shelters, housing assistance, and new construction, adding up to $1 billion in spending on the homeless in the Golden State. This was approved by lawmakers in Sunday’s budget committee meeting.

The budget conference committee however, sent their approved budget bill package to the governor somewhat unfinished and with placeholder language, the way they do with spot bills.

“The Budget Conference Committee held lengthy meetings on Monday and Tuesday of last week to close out the differences the two houses had on the budget. Then the Governor’s office, through the Department of Finance, the Speaker of the Assembly and the President Pro Tem of the Senate spent the next few days hammering out various compromises with practically no input from the minority party,” wrote Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) Monday in his official blog.

California Globe understands there will be much negotiating and horse trading before the fiscal year end of June 30.

This is the new budget process that took on a life of its own once the majority vote budget and deadlines took place under Proposition 25 in 2010. Prop. 25 ended the requirement that two-thirds of the members of the California State Legislature had to vote in favor of the state’s budget in order for the budget to be enacted. Prop. 25 also requires state legislators to forfeit their pay in years where they have failed to pass a budget in a timely fashion, but this has never happened as lawmakers now send an unfinished budget to the governor, and negotiate until years’ end.

Once lawmakers realized that they could pass major state policy – not through the proper committee process which include public hearings, public oversight – but through a $1,000 appropriation in a trailer bill, too many of the big changes in the budget are now buried in massive quantities of text and decided behind closed doors.


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach


MOORLACH UPDATE — Biggest Budget, Biggest Deficit — June 10, 2019

The Budget Conference Committee held lengthy meetings on Monday and Tuesday of last week to close out the differences the two houses had on the budget. Then the Governor’s office, through the Department of Finance, the Speaker of the Assembly and the President Pro Tem of the Senate spent the next few days hammering out various compromises with practically no input from the minority party.

This process did not conclude on Wednesday or Thursday, as the negotiators had predicted. I was back to the Capitol on Friday, but informed late in the day, that the Committee would meet again late Sunday afternoon. The joys of this assignment.

The semi-completed list of preferred or modified choices between the Assembly and Senate were finally provided early Sunday morning. I arrived at the Capitol at noon to be briefed with my colleague Sen. Jim Nielsen for four and a half hours. Then we started our third and final meeting of the Budget Conference Committee at 4:30 and concluded around 9:30 p.m.

The Sacramento Bee‘s electronic version, the first piece below, provides the details. Near the conclusion of the meeting, I informed the members that earlier in the week, during one of our first two meetings, I had inquired about the status of the state’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and when would it be released. It would be appropriate to have the last year’s audited financial statements before we voted on the next year’s annual budget.

I then stated that it had been released between our second and last night’s meeting and it reported that the Unrestricted Net Deficit had grown to $213 billion (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Results Released — June 6). Consequently, my voting was predicated on a poor balance sheet and a reluctance to incur more spending. The Independent Journal Review also used my quote (see

The California Globe provides a shout out to my review of the state’s June 30, 2018 CAFR in the second piece below.

The Democrats turned the budget into a Christmas tree last night. They brought out long lists of district requests that we had not seen before yesterday. I believe California should be focused on reducing debts, not going on a spending spree. The last surprise budget adjustment of the night was a request to reduce deferred maintenance by $100 million, as the proposed budget now needed to be balanced.

Can you believe it? The state is flush with $21.5 billion and the Democrats are overspending. I stated that reducing deferred maintenance is something a municipality does in a recession. This one budget adjustment was an indictment that this was not a successful budget.

25th Anniversary Look Back

The June 8th edition of the OC Register found reporter Chris Knap back with “Citron likely to keep long-time hold on office — Tax Collector-Treasurer: Attacks on his reputation backfired, the incumbent said as he held the lead Tuesday.” It started a series of reflections on the campaign by media pundits that were harsh and brutal. Here are a few selected paragraphs:

“I believe the voters understood what this election was all about,” Citron said. “The partisan attacks, and the attacks on my reputation as an investor of public funds, were irresponsible and they have backfired.”

[Moorlach] decliend to apologize for his campaign style.

“I feel we dealt with the issues,” he said. “We ran a clean campaign. I have no regrets.”

The turning point for Moorlach may have come in late April, when his honorary campaign chairman, state Sen. Marian Bergeson, R – Newport Beach, pulled back her endorsement.

On June 9th, in the Daily Pilot, liberal columnist Fred Martin fired a nasty attack in his review of the election results:

There certainly was justice after the scuzzy campaign John Moorlach ran to get himself elected county treasurer-tax collector.

Moorlach’s strategy in this supposedly nonpartisan race was to (a) denigrate incumbent Robert L. Citron because he is a Democrat, and (b) terrify the citizens by alleging that Citron’s complex investment strategies are going to lose all the county’s money.

One Moorlach supporter went so far as to endanger Orange County’s unblemished credit record by repeatedly contacting New York bond-rating services and financial media, trying to get them to investigate Citron.

None of the smeary stuff worked and Moorlach got his butt kicked, big time. Maybe there’s hope for us after all.

The same day, The Wall Street Journal provided the results in “Voters Re-Elect Treasurer Who Used Derivatives.” Maybe this title is Bob Citron’s epithet? The false euphemisms were abundant.

Mr. Citron maintained that his approach was “aggressively within prudent limits.” Rising interest rates had hurt the portfolio on paper, Mr. Citron said, but he said that he could hold his securities until maturity, and that by using that strategy “we do not take losses.”

The last Look Back can be seen at MOORLACH UPDATE — City of Inglewood — June 8, 2019.

Undocumented immigrants to get health care in Gavin Newsom’s California budget deal



California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s first budget won’t look exactly like he wanted, but a deal lawmakers released late Sunday largely fulfills the objectives he set six months ago when he first outlined his spending plan.

Lawmakers want to use an “extraordinary” state budget surplus to expand health care options for undocumented people while stockpiling billions of dollars in reserves in anticipation of an economic downturn, according to documents the Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee released.

The agreement marks the end of months of negotiations between Newsom and the Legislature. Lawmakers face a June 15 deadline to pass the budget, which will take effect in July.

The agreement includes funding to let young undocumented young adults under age 26 enroll in Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance program for low-income Californians. But it doesn’t extend that eligibility to undocumented seniors, as state senators had proposed.

The expansion will take effect Jan. 1, 2020 and cost $98 million in the upcoming fiscal year. It will make California the first state to allow undocumented adults to sign up for state-funded health coverage.

The budget includes a fine on people who don’t buy health insurance known as an individual mandate. The fines were initially implemented as part of the federal Affordable Care Act law known as Obamacare, but Republicans acted in 2017 to roll them back. Newsom and legislative leaders say re-imposing the penalty at the state level will shore up the state’s health insurance marketplace and keep premiums from rising dramatically.

Revenue from the mandate will fund insurance premium subsidies for middle income people. The budget agreement also includes an additional $450 million over three years to fund insurance subsidies after some lawmakers argued mandate revenue alone wouldn’t make health insurance affordable.

Anthony Wright, executive director of advocacy group Health Access, said the budget agreement will help hundreds of thousands of Californians access health care.

Wright applauded the Legislature for securing additional funding for insurance subsidies, which the governor’s office had initially resisted.

“While it’s not all we sought, it will provide a real tangible difference for people, especially for those around and below poverty and for middle income families who don’t get any help under the federal law,” he said.

Cynthia Buiza, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, praised the deal for expanding state health care to undocumented young adults, but faulted the compromise for not including two other priorities for immigrant advocates. They wanted Newsom to offer health care for undocumented seniors and to extend the earned income tax credit to low-income undocumented immigrants.

“For California’s immigrant communities, today’s budget deal is bittersweet,” Buiza said in a statement “The exclusion of undocumented elders from the same health care their U.S. citizen neighbors are eligible for means beloved community members will suffer and die from treatable conditions. And the exclusion of many immigrants from the Earned Income Tax Credit will perpetuate the crisis of economic inequality in our state.”

Newsom in May proposed a $213 billion state budget. The budget committee on Sunday did not disclose the total cost of the agreement it’s recommending.

“The budget agreement we’re finalizing tonight builds on the strong budget proposal of the governor, while adding significant legislative priorities,” said Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, who leads the joint legislative budget committee. “The budget agreement maintains our agreement to responsible budgeting, which includes the largest reserves in history – over $20 billion – finally paying off the remaining wall of debt from the Great Recession and making supplemental pension payments.”

Newsom won’t get the so-called water tax he proposed in January to pay for water system improvements for communities with unhealthy drinking water sources. But, lawmakers agreed to pay for the projects, anyway.

The compromise includes $130 million to start the work next year and commits to more funding through 2030.

“We are thrilled that the Legislature and Governor Newsom have committed stable funding to ensure that all Californians have access to safe and affordable drinking water this year and in the years to come,” a group of advocates known as the Safe Drinking Water Coalition said in a written statement.

The budget agreement includes billions of dollars supplemental pension payments to ease financial pressure on California school districts, which have been adjusting to higher rates from the California State Teachers’ Retirement System.

Newsom in January had proposed spending $7.8 billion beyond what was required by law on CalSTRS and the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. The budget compromise shows lawmakers want to spend even more.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office in April referred the state’s surplus as “extraordinary moment” that lawmakers could use to prepare for a recession. It urged more savings than Newsom recommended.

Democrats have supermajorities in both houses of the Legislature, so they don’t need Republican support to pass a budget.

Republicans on the budget committee voted against a number of spending proposals Sunday night, voicing worries about long-term debt.

“I’ve been voting no or abstaining on a lot of spending opportunities,” Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa, said. “Some people think the glass is half full, I’m looking at it as half empty, so that will maybe explain my caution on a lot of these spending votes tonight.”

State Economy Rankings: California is a Real Dichotomy

Rankings show California’s economic health is not in the middle class

By Katy Grimes

California just ranked in the top 5 in the overall WalletHub 2019 State Economy Rankings, while ranking low in the Economic Health Ranking. WalletHub compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia across three key dimensions: 1) Economic Activity, 2) Economic Health and 3) Innovation Potential.

In October 2018, California ranked 5th worst in the nation based on most fiscally solvent states, in the WalletHub State Fiscal Rankings.

California has the highest poverty rate in the nation, but also ranked number #5 in the highest number of high-tech industry jobs.

California was ranked 47th in median annual household income, which dragged down its overall ranking.

California tied for a four-way-first with Massachusetts, Washington and Oregon in the number of independent investor patents.

These rankings show how California has driven out manufacturing and production, replaced with high tech and service jobs, and established a part time economy, with a massive welfare system.

Even the New York Times recognizes California’s issues: “California may be a symbol of liberal values, but it’s also a symbol of the failures of liberal policy. It has the highest poverty rate in the country, housing costs are out of reach for many, and squalor and deprivation plague the streets of the biggest cities.”

California’s Real Fiscal Health

Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) just took a dive head first into the latest release of California’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for June 30, 2018 by the State Controller, released June 3 – nearly one year after the close of the 2018 fiscal year:

“I focus on the Governmental Activities of a municipality, so let me start there,” Moorlach said. “First, the Unrestricted Net Deficit has grown by nearly $44 billion! That’s about $1,100 per resident. California’s Unrestricted Net Deficit for Governmental Activities is now $213.3 billion, up from last year’s $169.5 billion. Add in the Unrestricted Net Deficit for Business-type Activities of $16 billion, and the combined amount is $230 billion in the red! I told you we would be close to a quarter-trillion dollars.”

“Diving in for the basic details, we find that cash and pooled investments are up $12 billion. But, accounts payable is up $3.2 billion, for a total of $28 billion. Can you find me another municipality with a larger accounts payable balance? The big number, of course, is the addition of $45.5 billion in retiree medical liabilities to the balance sheet, bringing the balance to $73.7 billion. This is three times the amount LAUSD reported for the same fiscal year. And, although the stock market has been doing relatively well during that time period, unfunded pension liabilities rose by another $10.7 billion, to $88 billion.”

“Oh Lord, please forgive us our debts.”

The CAFR can be found at Moorlach’s analysis is here.

WalletHub’s panel of economic experts point out that not all economic growth strategies are effective. For the best ways to stimulate the economy and achieve lasting prosperity, the experts shared their thoughts on the following key questions:

  1. What are the most effective ways for state and local officials to boost their local economies?
  2. What can states do to prevent “brain drain” and develop, attract and retain highly skilled workers?
  3. States often compete for business investment by offering tax breaks and other incentives. Do such efforts more often result in a net positive or net negative impact on state economies? Do such efforts create a “race to the bottom” across states?
  4. What makes a state attractive to potential entrepreneurs?
  5. In evaluating the states with the best economies, what are the top five indicators?


This e-mail has been sent by California State Senator John M. W. Moorlach, 37th District. If you no longer wish to subscribe, just let me know by responding with a request to do so.

Also follow me on Facebook & Twitter @SenatorMoorlach