MOORLACH UPDATE — Millionaires and Billionaires — July 17, 2018

Yesterday afternoon, my staff had the privilege to meet and listen to Orange County resident Robert Arnott. I’ve known Rob for years through my role as a trustee of the Orange County Employees Retirement System while I served as the Orange County Treasurer-Tax Collector from 1995 to 2006.

His page on the PIMCO website says the following:

Mr. Arnott is the founder and chairman of Research Affiliates, a subadvisor to PIMCO. In 2002, he established Research Affiliates as a research-intensive asset management firm that focuses on innovative asset allocation and alternative indexation products. He previously served as chairman of First Quadrant, as president of TSA Capital Management (now part of Analytic Investors), and as vice president at The Boston Company. He also was global equity strategist at Salomon Brothers. He has published more than 100 articles in journals such as the Journal of Portfolio Management, the Harvard Business Review and the Financial Analysts Journal, where he also served as editor in chief from 2002 through 2006. He graduated summa cum laude from the University of California, Santa Barbara, in 1977 in economics, applied mathematics and computer science.

Mr. Arnott wrote me recently to inform me that he is leaving a beautiful and massive ocean view home overlooking Newport Harbor to relocate to a new home in Miami, Florida.

So I asked him to visit with me and share why. He not only shared his personal story, he also shared his good fortune and career history in California, and his concerns about the unfunded pension liabilities facing U.S. citizens in every state.

To appreciate the discussion, read his piece, “The Great Tax Migration,” at

For background on the justification of his move, see MOORLACH UPDATE — SB 227 — January 15, 2018 .

For more fun, here is a PowerPoint slide that I have been using in recent speeches that California Democrats should let sink in:

Or maybe the majority should ponder on what has been occurring in Connecticut:

Better yet, New Jersey has a similar situation to that of Mr. Arnott:

I share this to point out that the Flashreport piece below is not an exaggeration. It is not hyperbole. And, while the good ship California has a massive leak, its Democratic legislators have not been willing to even put a cork into it. The closest they have come is the embarrassing attempt to make state tax payments deductible as contributions (see the link above).





Katy Grimes

CA Dems Paint Rosy Picture of Failing California

Posted by Katy Grimes

The future of California is not looking as rosy as the state’s Democrat Party politicians want us to believe. Whenever challenged on the stability of his economy, Gov. Jerry Brown’s knee-jerk retort is, “California is the fifth largest economy on the planet,” as if the size of the economy in the most populous state in the nation is relevant. With nearly 40 million people, California now feels and looks like a Banana Republic in the cities, as well as rural areas in the state.

A homeless camp at Market Street and 5th Street is photographed on Thursday, May 18, 2017, in Oakland, Calif. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group) (camp 20)

Whether you are forced to check the public defecation map to navigate the streets of San Francisco, are on the 57 freeway in Santa Ana looking at miles of homeless tent cities and camps, or you are dodging heroin-addicted homeless zombies around the State Capitol and on residential streets in Sacramento, the results are the same — Nearly one-third of the nation’s homeless population lives in California.

California today is not the California I grew up in. And our Democrat politicians keep telling us to just get used to it.

Too many tax-paying Californian earners are leaving California for lower tax, higher-liberty states, willing to forgo the beautiful California weather for more freedom. This does not bode well for California’s future any longer, with the tone deaf Socialist-Communist-Democrats saying we’d all better get used to this. And lest I forget to mention it, this is Jerry Brown’s California where our four-term governor wants to outlaw private ownership of automobiles, supports universal single-payer health care, and issues in-state “visas” for illegal aliens… and constant tax increases are the only way the state and its largest cities seem to operate.

Even while watching the significant outmigration of the middle class, as well as hundreds of millionaires and billionaires, nearly every city has a tax increase on the November ballot.

Solving Growing City Budget With Tax Increases – AGAIN

In 2012 when Jerry Brown was getting his Proposition 30 sales and income tax increase on the wealthiest Californians, Sacramento city voters also passed Measure U, a “temporary tax” to allow the City to enact a half-cent sales tax for six years with all revenue going to the City’s General Fund.

Proponents claimed the “temporary measure” was needed to stop the loss of city services and jobs blamed on the recession. The City of Sacramento said Measure U was needed to restore and protect City services. “The intent was to restore police and fire services, park maintenance and other essential services that were cut between 2008 and 2013.” The city made it appear unthinkable that voters would deny police, fire and parks their rightful budgets.

Most city residents already noticed the loss of city services along with skyrocketing city utility/services bills.

“Budget officials initially projected the tax would generate $31.8 million in the current fiscal year,” reported in 2015. “Instead, Measure U dollars are now expected to reach $41.5 million this year and remain nearly $10 million above original projections for the next four years.”

But Measure U is set to expire in March 2019. So what does Mayor Darrell Steinberg and the City Council do? They put Measure U back on the ballot for November, to double the size of the tax and make it permanent, saying “inclusive economic growth” makes it necessary. “I’m confident when people see what we can do with a full penny, they will respond favorably,” Steinberg said.

If you aren’t familiar with “inclusive economic growth,” you may want to pour a whiskey when you read,”Inclusive growth is economic growth that is distributed fairly across society and creates opportunities for all,” according to many “Sustainable growth” organizations. It’s largely used in third-world countries, so I’m curious why Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg chose this feel-good wording… unless perhaps he agrees that Sacramento is turning into a third world city.

In 2017, a city report found a 30 percent spike in homelessness over the past two years, which many in the region felt underestimated the problem.

And to our south, L.A.’s homelessness surged 75% in six years .

At the root of the financial problem in nearly every California city, as well as at the state, is swelling pension obligations, — though no one in Sacramento City Hall wants to admit this is what the Measure U tax increase is really about. “As the costs of pensions and employee salaries increase, the city of Sacramento is forecasting budget deficits beginning next year, reported. “Those gaps are expected to reach $25 million by 2022.”

In April, legislative Democrats killed three bipartisan bills that would have made significant changes to the future of California’s pension system. Rather than agreeing to reduce the risk taxpayers face in the $1.2 trillion public pension and health obligations, particularly if we face another recession, Democrats killed the bills, opting to grow the state employee pyramid scheme instead. “Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, countered that she wanted to find ways to encourage more people to join pension programs instead of 401(k) plans,” reported. “I just think we need to do everything we can to get our young people into defined-benefit plans,” she said, proving that their only plan is to bring in more state employees.

“CalPers, CalStrs and the State health plan have a total of $1.2 trillion in unfunded liabilities. For years CalPERS has been lying about their return on investment, claiming it to be 7.5%. Instead in 2014-15, per State Senator John Moorlach, it is actually 2.4%.”

The pension overhaul bills the committee rejected were:

 Republican Sen. John Moorlach’s Senate Bill 1032, which would make it easier for local governments to separate from CalPERS without paying the hefty termination fees that CalPERS charges to fund pension obligations for defunct agencies. If an agency quits CalPERS without paying the fees, CalPERS slashes the pensions it provides to the agency’s former workers.

Moorlach’s SB 1031, which would prohibit pension funds from providing cost-of-living adjustments to retirees if the pension fund has less than 80 percent of the assets it would need to pay the benefits it owes. Most retired public employees can receive cost-of-living adjustments of 2 percent each year, but some contracts allow up to 5 percent. Moorlach’s proposal would have applied only to state workers hired after Jan. 1, 2019.

Democrat Sen. Steve Glazer’s SB 1149, which would have allowed new state workers to opt for a 401(k) plan instead of a pension. The concept is attractive to younger workers who do not intend to be career civil servants. The University of California is offering a similar plan, and 37 percent of new workers are choosing 401(k) plans instead of pensions.

Which came first – the explosion of homeless on California streets, rivers, parkways and highways, or the unfunded pension crisis? Irresponsible politicians created both.

There is so much that’s wrong with California, but not so much that it could not be fixed if we could just rid ourselves of the irresponsible, selfish, malignant, unstable Democrats in government – the same Democrats who put labor unions over people, illegal aliens over citizens, and their own power over the well-being of their constituents. Even New York Magazine agrees: Democrats Must Be More Ruthless — When They Have Power – NYMag.

For more information about California’s public pension crisis, visit Sen. John Moorlach’s PENSION CRISIS page – the only CPA in the California Legislature tells the unvarnished truth.

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 — The Joys of Presenting Bills — April 24, 2018

Monday was mixed. SB 1363 passed unanimously on the Senate Floor. SB 1074 was killed in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on the basis that the price for a gallon is the price for a gallon of gas and the details be damned. And SB 1031, 1032 and SB 1433 were killed in the Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, with SB 1033 held back for more consultation with the Committee Chair and CalPERS. The Sacramento Bee covers it in the first piece below. It also discusses SB 1149, of which I was a proud Co-Author.

SB 1159 went out of Senate Appropriations successfully (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Right to Peaceably Assemble — April 13, 2018). The new Editor for CalMatters, Dan Morain, has some fun with it in the second piece below. Dan was formally with the LA Times and recently resigned from the Sacramento Bee. We go pretty far back.

Dan’s piece brings up an interesting concern. As a C.P.A., am I prohibited from doing something that will encourage more C.P.A.s to run for legislative office? Is it really self-serving? Would any other legislator be able to carry such a bill?

All retired C.P.A.s are required to note that they are “retired” or “inactive” on their stationery. But, attorneys in the Legislature are exempted from the requirement to obtain continuing professional education. Other professional licenses do not require qualifiers. I know that retired military officers do it. If you’ve earned an MBA, you can keep it behind your name for the remainder of your life.

Accordingly, I worked for the last couple of years with the California State Board of Accountancy for a reasonable solution. They recommended that instead of doing something administratively, that I introduce a bill. The Board supported the language we proposed for SB 1159. I did have a potential author, a former staffer for Congressman Brad Sherman, but he resigned from the Assembly recently. Consequently, I decided to move forward and let the cards fall where they may.

For entertainment value, the most recent edition of Inside OC finds host Rick Reiff rattling my cage on a number of current issues. It’s the third link below.

Last week I voted “No” on SB 832 (Portantino) and SB 951 (Mitchell). When I was interviewed by the OC Register‘s Editorial Board about my candidacy for State Senator in 2015, I provided the following position (see MOORLACH CAMPAIGN UPDATE — OC Register Endorsement — February 15, 2015):

Though the Legislature has often doled out tax credits to preferred industries, such as Hollywood and “green-energy” companies, Mr. Moorlach finds such favoritism distasteful. “I’m not an advocate of special incentives,” he said.

Three years later and I’m still of the same mind. I would prefer to deposit $330 million in one of California’s pension plans or other post employment benefits to reduce the unfunded liabilities. And why give a tax credit to one industry when so many others are trying to make do? Why not a “no better, no worse” approach?

And, worse, while the Capitol is trying to improve the culture, why give tax credits to an industry that brought us Weinstein and Toback? The Los Angeles Business Journal mentions the fun on this topic in the fourth piece below.

The LA Times addresses SB 1206 (De Leon) in the fifth piece below. This bill was introduced by Sen. De Leon and myself and I will be presenting it in the Senate Health Committee tomorrow. We need funding to build immediate housing for the state’s mentally ill homeless population and we need to do it now. This is a new approach on “No Place Like Home.”

Last week, Wednesday, I had one of the more awkward moments while presenting a bill. SB 1325 used an existing “Act” title. Rather than debate the actual policy in my bill, one of my Senate colleagues made it personal and proceeded to impugn my intentions where he actually presumed that I was being a racist toward an Asian Pacific Islander Caucus member, a charge that not only caught me off guard, but was highly inappropriate and regrettable.

I met with both of them the following morning to dispose them of any untoward motives. Ironically, a few minutes after these two discussions, my grandson, Koa, was born. Koa would qualify as a member of the Asian Pacific Islander Caucus.

The presentation is addressed by in the last piece below.

image8Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 9.52.04 PM

The State Worker

Chronicling civil-service life for California state workers

Cost-of-living adjustments for California state worker pensions are safe, for now



Future state workers, your pension cost-of-living adjustments are safe, and you won’t get to choose between a CalPERS pension and a 401(k) plan anytime soon.

Both proposals were shot down on Monday by a Senate committee that rejected a pack of bills aimed at reducing the risk taxpayers face if an economic crisis cripples the state’s public pension funds.

Most of the bills came from Republican Sen. John Moorlach of Costa Mesa and Democratic Sen. Steve Glazer of Orinda, who argue that the rising cost of public pensions could drive local governments into bankruptcy when the next recession hits.

“We need to right-size the system. We need to restore public trust, because we’re going off a fiscal cliff,” said Glazer, the former Orinda mayor who sponsored the bill that would have allowed state workers to choose to participate in defined contribution 401(k) plan instead of the defined benefit plan offered by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

California’s two largest public pension funds, CalPERS and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System, each have about 71 percent of the assets they’d need to pay all of the benefits they owe to public workers and retirees.

They’ve been trying to close the gap between what they have and what they owe by raising the amount of money they charge to public employers and employees, prompting some local governments and school districts to complain that pension costs are “crowding out” resources for other services.

But Glazer and Moorlach could not convince the Senate Public Employee and Retirement Committee that the looming crisis they see is dangerous enough to tinker with pension commitments made by the state and local agencies to millions of people.

Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, countered that she wanted to find ways to encourage more people to join pension programs instead of 401(k) plans. “I just think we need to do everything we can to get our young people into defined-benefit plans,” she said.

The pension overhaul bills the committee rejected were:

Moorlach’s Senate Bill 1032, which would make it easier for local governments to separate from CalPERS without paying the hefty termination fees that CalPERS charges to fund pension obligations for defunct agencies. If an agency quits CalPERS without paying the fees, CalPERS slashes the pensions it provides to the agency’s former workers.

Moorlach’s SB 1031, which would prohibit pension funds from providing cost-of-living adjustments to retirees if the pension fund has less than 80 percent of the assets it would need to pay the benefits it owes. Most retired public employees can receive cost-of-living adjustments of 2 percent each year, but some contracts allow up to 5 percent. Moorlach’s proposal would have applied only to state workers hired after Jan. 1, 2019.

▪ Glazer’s SB 1149, which would have allowed new state workers to opt for a 401(k) plan instead of a pension. The concept is attractive to younger workers who do not intend to be career civil servants. The University of California is offering a similar plan, and 37 percent of new workers are choosing 401(k) plans instead of pensions.

The bills are essentially dead for this legislative session, although they could be revived if enough lawmakers want to bring them back from reconsideration.

A long line of union representatives spoke against each bill. Terry Brennand, a lobbyist for SEIU California, called the Glazer bill a “disaster waiting to happen.”

Ted Toppin, a lobbyist for state scientists and engineers, called the bill to waive CalPERS’ termination fees an opportunity for employers to “stiff” their workers in retirement.

The unions want more time for the pension funds to benefit from recent changes that have employers kicking in more money for retirement plans and to recalibrate from the 2012 law that eliminated especially generous plans that the Legislature offered to public employees during the dot-com boom.


Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 9.54.34 PM

By Dan Morain

An accountant’s trick


Calling politicians self-serving can be redundant. It can be bipartisan, too.

Sen. John Moorlach, an Orange County Republican, and Congressman Brad Sherman, a San Fernando Valley Democrat, are certified public accountants. Because they haven’t kept up with their continuing education requirements, their licenses are inactive. No big deal. Lots of professionals let their licenses lapse.

So what? In 2009, the Legislature, without a single no vote, approved a measure that says all inactive CPAs must disclose their status on any business communications in which they call themselves CPAs. That includes Moorlach and Sherman.

Unlike other CPAs, however, Moorlach can carry legislation, and he is, to the delight of Sherman.Senate Bill 1159 would exempt any CPA member of the Legislature or Congress from having to disclose that they’re inactive. The bill would affect two people: Moorlach and Sherman. Sherman wrote a letter of support:

“I believe that my colleagues, as well as other interested parties, would more carefully review my letters and documents on tax and budgeting issues if I could sign them as follows: Congressman Brad Sherman, CPA.”

A rich target: The Senate Appropriations Committee approved Moorlach’s bill unanimously on Monday. At an earlier hearing, Moorlach seemed somewhat sheepish, calling the bill “a little self-serving.” Sen. Bill Dodd, a Napa Valley Democrat, voted no at that hearing, and made a point that accountants would appreciate: pushing a single bill through the legislative process costs about $10,000.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 9.56.04 PM


Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 9.58.05 PM


Film Credit Clears Committees

By Matthew Blake

Los Angeles — A bill to extend California’s motion picture tax credit program sailed through Assembly and Senate committees last week.

“Clearly we have a lot of work to do – I think there is much more we should do,” said Kansen Chu, a San Jose-based Democrat and chair of the Arts, Entertainment, Sports, Tourism and Internet Media committee.

Chu and four other members of the committee all voted on April 18 to approve Assembly Bill 1734, which would lengthen by five years California’s $330-million-a-year film and television tax credit program. The policy is due to sunset at the end of 2019.

Committee members also approved without opposition Assembly Bill 2936, a similar measure to continue the credits.

The California Senate Government and Finance Committee, meanwhile, passed its own tax credit legislation, Senate Bill 951, on April 19 by a 5-1 vote.

Chu expressed concerns the tax credits aren’t doing enough to diversify Hollywood.

Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon, a Democrat from eastern L.A. County and sponsor of AB 1734, has said that a final version of the bill could include greater incentives for women and minority filmmakers.

The California legislature passed in 2014 an expansion of the state’s tax credit program for movies and television shows from $100 million a year in credits to $330 million per annum.

The legislation provides television shows relocating to the Golden State and movies that shoot in California with a refund of 20 percent to 25 percent on crew member wages, as well as production and editing costs. The policy applies statewide but has an outsized effect in Los Angeles County, which hosts more than 90 percent of shoots that use the credits.

California differs from other states, such as Georgia and Louisiana, by limiting its credit programs to film crew, without reimbursement for the wages of actors, writers and directors.

The California Chamber of Commerce and various labor unions attended the committee hearing to shower praise on tax credits, stating that they generated billions of dollars in spending including crew wages.

The lone dissenting vote came from Sen. John Moorlach, a Costa Mesa Republican.

“I don’t want to pick winners and losers” among businesses, Moorlach said in an interview. “I want to try and protect tax revenues for my state.”


Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 9.59.19 PM.png
With money tied up in court,

California lawmakers try again with

new plan to spend $2 billion on

homeless housing


A measure to spend $2 billion on housing homeless Californians could be on the November statewide ballot.

State Sen. Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles) is pushing the idea to deal with what he said was a “burgeoning humanitarian crisis whose epicenter is here in California.”

De León’s new measure is a do-over for a 2016 plan passed by the Legislature to redirect $2 billion toward building homeless housing from a voter-approved 1% income tax surcharge on millionaires that funds mental health services. A Sacramento attorney sued over that decision, arguing that the move violated constitutional rules on approving loans without a public vote and that lawmakers shouldn’t take money away from mental health treatment. The case remains active in Sacramento Superior Court and it’s unclear when, or if, the state will be able to spend the $2 billion.

De León’s Senate Bill 1206 would put the $2-billion loan on the ballot in November, freeing up the money if voters approve the measure. De León said had he been able to predict the 2016 plan would end up in court, he would have sought a ballot measure at the time.

“We thought this was like apple pie and baseball and puppies,” De León said. “Who would oppose the idea of repurposing the dollars to build immediate housing as a permanent solution for homelessness? Obviously with a crystal ball, had I anticipated the litigation, I would have worked to place it on the ballot.”

De León noted that the 2016 plan had bipartisan supermajority support in the Legislature, something his new bill also will need to get on the ballot. Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) is a coauthor of the plan.

SB 1206 is scheduled for its first hearing in the Legislature on Wednesday.

Should De León’s measure be approved, it will join a crowded list of housing issues before voters in November. Californians will decide on a separate $4-billion bond to help finance new low-income housing and home loans for veterans. De León said he’s not worried those two measures will compete against each other because voters are aware of the scale of the state’s housing problems and the proposed homeless housing bond redirects existing dollars instead of raising taxes.

“Once [voters] know that the impact on their pocketbook is not existent, I’m confident that they’ll join me and my colleague John Moorlach in support of this measure,” De León said.


Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 10.00.11 PM.png

California Democratic Senators Newman and Pan Caught Fabricating Racism To Exterminate Civil Rights Bill

Last week California Democratic Senators Josh Newman and Richard Pan fabricated claims of racism to exterminate a civil rights bill, and they got away with it despite their failure to provide any evidence substantiating their allegations. To date, Senators Newman and Pan have not been held accountable for their actions.

The civil rights bill these Democratic Senators exterminated was simple: it would have guaranteed individuals and families the right to self-quarantine in their homes in the event of a pandemic, without fear of being criminalized for simply existing in their natural state (i.e., free of antibiotics or experimental vaccines). Why would anyone want to exterminate a person’s obvious right to simply exist at home in an un-medicated state, especially a perfectly healthy person?

Well, apparently the California Senate Health Committee wants to exterminate such a right.

Background of this Civil Rights Bill: PANDA

The bill in question was a scientifically supported, common sense civil rights safeguard introduced by Republican Senator John Moorlach. It was originally authored and named the Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act (“PANDA”) in the year 2013 by Greg Glaser, JD, for the Pandemic Response Project. Here is the original petition from the year 2013: link.

PANDA was written and named by Glaser before virtually everyone (including Glaser) had ever heard of Senator Pan. This is because the PANDA bill was written 1-year before Senator Pan gained notoriety by introducing California’s mandatory vaccination law SB 277. Recall that Senator Pan capitalized on the 2014 Disneyland measles event to push SB 277 through the California legislature, even though not a single child was injured by those measles, or even by most measles – see here; and further, the measles-containing vaccine has not been scientifically proven to be safer than the measles – see here.

We spoke with Glaser to confirm these details. And indeed, Glaser helped us confirm the obvious: his bill “PANDA” was named before Pan’s SB 277 and it was a reference to the word “pandemic” because it came through the Pandemic Response Project.

Interestingly, when naming the bill in 2013, Glaser chose the panda bear analogy because, in his words, “The panda is a beautiful symbol of both peace and nature, especially given the legal protection pandas enjoy.

As an endangered species they are afforded legal protection to exist in their own natural home habitat. So protecting pandas in their home is a good analogy for also protecting the right of peaceful humans to live naturally in our homes, even if there is a pandemic somewhere among the public outside.”

Moreover, “PANDAS” is also the well-known acronym for the prominent vaccine injury, “Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorder Associated with Streptococcus”.

Democratic Senators Newman and Pan Fabricate a Race Card to Exterminate Civil Rights

Senator Moorlach who introduced the bill was shocked when Senator Newman claimed on the record that there were racial and offensive undertones to the pneumonic title “PANDA” (Peaceful and Natural Dignity Act). In addition to whispering something to Senator Newman before the event in question, Senator Pan nodded along in agreement with Senator Newman that the bill’s name was a personal affront to Senator Pan.

In the words of Senator Newman: “Where did the acronym PANDA come from? The panda animal would seem to have very little to do with vaccinations, but it does tend to have a racial or ethnic tinge to it; it also includes the first three letters of my colleague’s name, and I could see where one might take offense.” See video at 2:03:40: link.

From the video recording, Senator Moorlach was obviously stunned and speechless at Senator Newman’s allegation. Senator Moorlach said he did not know what to say, because he had never drawn the same pneumonic association that Newman was suggesting was racial. The video also shows the Democratic chair of the Committee refused to let Glaser even speak a word to explain the bill’s name origin (naturally, Glaser would have explained that PANDA was a reference to “pandemic” because it came through the Pandemic Response Project, long before SB 277). It is currently unknown whether the chair of the committee was also collaborating with Newman to intentionally fabricate a racism allegation, especially because he was also involved in the pre-event whispers with Senator Pan.

It is also unknown how much information the other Senators had about PANDA’s name origin. Their complete silence on the video suggests they lacked context or information necessary to know that Newman and Pan’s race card had indeed been fabricated.

The notion of racism here was simply a non-issue, but as no California Senator would ever go on record supporting a civil rights bill that could be perceived or labeled as having a potentially racist title, they obviously all voted no. Perhaps the majority would have voted no anyway on the merits, but we will probably never know.

PANDA: Why It Is Necessary

Glaser says the PANDA bill is necessary to create a civil rights safeguard against current California law that allows authorities to exercise a form of absolute power, by arresting healthy individuals who simply choose to remain un-medicated at home during a pandemic:

The local health officer may take any preventive measure that may be necessary to protect and preserve the public health from any public health hazard during any “state of war emergency,” “state of emergency,” or “local emergency”…. Any person who… refuses or neglects to conform … is guilty of a misdemeanor.”

Cal. Health and Safety Code §§101040 and 120275

According to Glaser’s research submitted for the Senate hearing, PANDA was based upon a report by public health scholars at Boston University, in partnership with the ACLU, who found:

“Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots…”

Annas, G., Mariner, W., Parmet, W., Pandemic Preparedness: The Need for a Public Health (Not A Law Enforcement/National Security) Approach. American Civil Liberties Union, January 2008.

And the CDC has observed the exact same phenomenon, which was reported in the CDC’s published journal in the year 2013:

During outbreaks of plague and cholera, the fear of discrimination and mandatory quarantine and isolation led the weakest social groups and minorities to escape affected areas and, thus, contribute to spreading the disease farther and faster, as occurred regularly in towns affected by deadly disease outbreaks. [And] in the globalized world, fear, alarm, and panic, augmented by global media, can spread farther and faster and, thus, play a larger role than in the past.

Tognotti, E., Lessons from the History of Quarantine, from Plague to Influenza A, Centers for Diseases Control EID Journal, Volume 19, Number 2—February 2013; DOI: 10.3201/eid1902.120312

Glaser also highlighted during the Senate Hearing that PANDA has a legal precedent in California’s current Tuberculosis control law:

“No examination or inspection shall be required of any person who depends exclusively on prayer for healing in accordance with the teachings of any well recognized religious sect, denomination or organization and claims exemption on that ground, except that the provisions of this code regarding compulsory reporting of communicable diseases and isolation and quarantine shall apply where there is probable cause to suspect that the person is infected with the disease in a communicable stage. Such person shall not be required to submit to any medical treatment, or to go to or be confined in a hospital or other medical institution; provided, he or she can be safely quarantined and/or isolated in his or her own home or other suitable place of his or her choice.” Cal. Health & Safety Code section 121370

Sixty physicians were on record supporting PANDA, along with several PhDs and rights groups. By contrast, the AAP was opposed to the bill. Ultimately, the Senate Health Committee voted no on the bill. But suspiciously, they never even engaged Glaser or Moorlach in dialogue regarding the substantive points raised by the ACLU and CDC Journal findings.

Instead, Senator Pan conducted a unilateral dialogue with a single opposition witness regarding cherry-picked measles cases. Senator Pan did not question the expert witness in support of PANDA, Tina Kimmel, PhD, MPH, who worked for the California Department of Public Health for most of her career, including within the Immunization Branch.

Dr. Kimmel provided testimony that emphasized why mandating vaccination has been proven to be counterproductive to public health goals. Indeed, none of the Senators asked Dr. Kimmel any questions. So on multiple levels, it does not appear that PANDA was given a fair or honest hearing.

If PANDA Had Been Given A Fair Hearing

Let’s consider why this bill – PANDA – is much more effective than mass coercive vaccination in the event of a public health emergency.

Even if we ignore the studies and surveys that show unvaccinated people are statistically healthier than vaccinated people, we cannot ignore the large, time-tested and statistically validated fact that isolation, sanitization and self-quarantine is far and away the most effective method whereby infectious disease transmission is obviated.

Note for example the figure below: it compares smallpox fatality rates in virtually unvaccinated and “unprotected” Leicester versus vaccinated/revaccinated populations in various areas (Japan, London, etc.). What does one see? The smallpox fatality rates are significantly lower in unvaccinated Leicester – a region which utilized the self-quarantine method to preclude infectious disease transmission.

The facts ostensibly demonstrate that mass coercive vaccination is not the most effective method (in fact, evidence indicates it worsens mortality).

Beyond the scientific aspect, coercive vaccination (in public health emergencies) that abrogates civil liberties, constitutional rights, and bioethical principles internationally regarded (bodily autonomy, inviolability, self-determination, etc.) acts to foster distrust of governmental authorities, and actually elicits greater rebellion and associated chaos. These legal concerns from the ACLU and CDC were the primary point that Glaser emphasized during the hearing, while his fellow witness, Dr. Kimmel, focused her testimony on the public health benefits of PANDA.

So, what could possibly be the impetus for opposition to this logical, scientifically/statistically proven method, which sensibly balances public health with respect for civil liberties? Did Big Pharma strike again?

We contacted Glaser after the hearing to obtain his impression of the day’s events. In his own words:

“When Senator Newman challenged the name PANDA as derogatory, I was shocked. I know Senator Moorlach was shocked too. He was just standing there and didn’t know what to say. Obviously racism isn’t something our offices had ever talked about or even considered.

The Committee chair wouldn’t even let me speak to explain the bill’s origins from the word “pandemic”. I found it strange that a surprise, fabricated side-issue could actually derail a very serious civil rights bill. I’m not a political guy, so I didn’t really understand what was happening in that Senate room. All I know is what I saw.

The Senators asked no questions about the ACLU or CDC references that we provided. Perhaps that’s just how these hearings go, but it didn’t seem like an honest hearing to me. From my experience in courtrooms, I can only say that ignoring actual evidence in favor of an unsubstantiated sideshow would never happen in an honest courtroom.

I also observed several other bills on calendar at this Health Committee, and there was an obvious pattern – this Health Committee has taken up the banner of financing the public’s demand for drugs and surgery.

I would say that even appears to be their primary purpose. Natural health and organic living are not discussed or considered among these Senators, let alone respected as the primary means for good health. If mass financing of drugs and surgery is what California health politics has devolved into, I have no interest.

Glaser also advised that he is uncertain where his PANDA bill may go from here. But he did offer a parting insight:

“If you believe that we can trust pharmaceutical companies to inject people only with drugs and toxins that are good for them, then you are neither a historian nor a critical thinker. There is a reason these companies demanded legal immunity from lawsuits – their products are inherently dangerous. And government officials are also immune from lawsuits. So the system inherently lacks accountability, regardless of one’s position on vaccination. Sadly, the political system is ironically dismissing the scientific method to promote a one-size-fits-all experimental pharmacy for the American people. Even vaccine-enthusiasts must admit that mandatory vaccination policies eliminate the continued availability of a control sample – a group of healthy and natural people – who check and balance their assumptions about the science of immunity.”

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 — City CAFR Rankings – Vol. 5 — February 14, 2018

Happy Valentine’s Day!

The Daily Pilot has picked up SB 1031 in the first piece below (see MOORLACH UPDATE — City CAFR Rankings – Vol. 4 — February 12, 2018).

The Orange County Breeze provides the notification that we released to announce our three pension related bills in the second piece below.

It is followed by the next 50 cities, #300-251, in our series. No OC cities are included in this group. The above link provides the last volume and links to the first three.

Senate Bill 1032, the second of the three bills introduced last week, is an updated version of last year’s SB 681 (see and MOORLACH UPDATE — CalPERS Exit Strategies — November 18, 2017). It is another solution for struggling municipalities that need options in designing a financial work around plan.

Getting bills out of the Senate Public Employee and Retirement Committee, the customary first stop for pension legislation, will be very difficult, as the unions control three of the five votes. But, we need to provide solutions for municipalities that have contracted with CalPERS that need to consider something more fiscally reasonable and realistic than the very expensive TAP (Terminating Agency Pool) exit strategy. This current straight-jacket approach is not an appropriate strategy at all and is actually fiscal extortion. CalPERS has lost its way and has become a mother of plan sponsors and not a fiduciary provider. Let’s hope this second effort motivates CalPERS to resolve their misplaced authority over what should just be servicing financial customers (versus debt bondage).

BONUS: Do you want to learn more about California’s public employee defined benefit pension plans? I will be participating with fellow governing board members and experts at a public forum on Public Pensions hosted by the Association of California Cities – Orange County (ACCOC) Friday morning, March 9th at the Newport Beach Community Center. You are invited to attend. For more information visit:

Political Landscape: State Sen. Moorlach proposes cost-of-living limit on state pension systems


Political Landscape: State Sen. Moorlach proposes cost-of-living limit on state pension systems

State Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) has introduced a bill that could limit cost-of-living adjustments for state pensions. (File Photo)

State Sen. John Moorlach (R-Costa Mesa) has introduced a bill he contends will reduce the future taxpayer burden to fund the state system while also protecting pensioners’ vested funds

Senate Bill 1031, introduced Thursday, would limit the pension system from making any cost-of-living (COLA) adjustments after Jan. 1, 2019, if the unfunded actuarial liability of the system is greater than 20%.

“It would protect the solvency of public-employee pensions by making sure each yearly COLA … isn’t so large it tips the underlying fund into insolvency,” Moorlach said in a statement. “If a pension system is funded at less than 80%, then the COLA would be suspended until the funding status recovers.

“The requirement would prod pension boards and policymakers to ensure pensions are adequately funded and don’t end up being cut sharply in an emergency, as happened recently to Detroit’s pensions. Not just taxpayers, but state employees and retirees should be the biggest supporters of Senate Bill 1031.”

Gov. Jerry Brown’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2018-19 sets aside $9.3 billion for pensions, with $6.2 billion toward the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and nearly $3.1 billion to the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS).

The CalPERS funding is $389 million more than last year.

Inline image 3

Senator John Moorlach introduces Senate Bill 1031 to protect pensions funds

Senator John Moorlach introduces Senate Bill 1031 to protect pensions funds

“With California’s pension problem getting worse every year, I am introducing three new bills to both reduce the future burden on taxpayers and protect retired public employees’ vested funds. Gov. Jerry Brown emphasized the problem in his new budget proposal for fiscal year 2018-19, slating a whopping $9.3 billion just to pay for current pension obligations. That cost is only going to increase and divert money from other priorities unless we make it better.”

“Senate Bill 1031 is the first bill. It would protect the solvency of public-employee pensions by making sure each yearly COLA – cost-of-living-adjustment – isn’t so large it tips the underlying fund into insolvency. If a pension system is funded at less than 80 percent, then the COLA would be suspended until the funding status recovers.”

“The requirement would prod pension boards and policymakers to ensure pensions are adequately funded and don’t end up being cut sharply in an emergency, as happened recently to Detroit’s pensions. Not just taxpayers, but state employees and retirees should be the biggest supporters of Senate Bill 1031.”

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

Rank City Population UNP UNP Per Year of
(Thousands) Capita CAFR
300 Whittier 87,708 ($29,250) ($333) 2017
299 Oakdale 22,711 ($7,411) ($326) 2016
298 Burlingame 30,148 ($9,583) ($318) 2017
297 Roseville 135,868 ($42,898) ($316) 2017
296 Santee 57,100 ($17,759) ($311) 2017
295 Colusa 6,340 ($1,966) ($310) 2017
294 Antioch 114,241 ($34,184) ($299) 2017
293 Campbell 42,726 ($12,748) ($298) 2016
292 Selma 25,156 ($7,383) ($293) 2017
291 Crescent City 6,389 ($1,867) ($292) 2017
290 Oceanside 176,461 ($50,292) ($285) 2017
289 Bakersfield 383,512 ($108,784) ($284) 2017
288 Baldwin Park 75,537 ($21,286) ($282) 2016
287 San Anselmo 12,937 ($3,570) ($276) 2017
286 Grand Terrace 12,435 ($3,219) ($259) 2015
285 Dinuba 24,861 ($6,392) ($257) 2017
284 Sanger 26,412 ($6,695) ($253) 2016
283 California City 14,248 ($3,408) ($239) 2016
282 Dixon 19,298 ($4,444) ($230) 2017
281 Larkspur 12,572 ($2,850) ($227) 2017
280 Livermore 89,648 ($20,114) ($224) 2017
279 Martinez 37,658 ($8,402) ($223) 2016
278 Exeter 10,985 ($2,404) ($219) 2016
277 Clearlake 15,531 ($3,388) ($218) 2015
276 Anderson 10,450 ($2,150) ($206) 2016
275 Barstow 24,248 ($4,893) ($202) 2016
274 Pleasanton 75,916 ($15,319) ($202) 2017
273 Fort Bragg 7,772 ($1,518) ($195) 2017
272 Lake Elsinore 62,092 ($12,062) ($194) 2017
271 La Mesa 60,286 ($11,563) ($192) 2016
270 Galt 25,693 ($4,605) ($179) 2016
269 Reedley 26,152 ($4,457) ($170) 2017
268 Madera 66,082 ($11,207) ($170) 2016
267 Lakeport 4,786 ($801) ($167) 2016
266 San Mateo 103,426 ($16,647) ($161) 2017
265 Mount Shasta 3,355 ($523) ($156) 2017
264 Arroyo Grande 17,736 ($2,754) ($155) 2016
263 Glendora 52,608 ($7,938) ($151) 2017
262 Kingsburg 12,338 ($1,834) ($149) 2017
261 San Ramon 80,550 ($11,566) ($144) 2017
260 Corning 7,522 ($1,065) ($142) 2016
259 Yuba City 67,445 ($9,467) ($140) 2016
258 Watsonville 53,015 ($7,184) ($136) 2016
257 Cotati 7,272 ($958) ($132) 2017
256 Greenfield 17,866 ($2,284) ($128) 2015
255 Murrieta 114,914 ($14,654) ($128) 2016
254 Gridley 6,704 ($843) ($126) 2016
253 Belvedere 2,172 ($264) ($122) 2017
252 Santa Maria 106,280 ($10,597) ($100) 2016
251 Burbank 105,033 ($9,364) ($89) 2017

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 — City CAFR Rankings – Vol. 4 — February 12, 2018

Today’s Volume 4 provides the cities ranked between #350 and #301. It includes the Orange County cities of Placentia (#349), Westminster (#346), Garden Grove (#330), Los Alamitos (#328), La Habra (#315), and Buena Park (#302). This brings us up to 12 out of the 34 OC cities that are in the bottom 182.

This group of 50 represents about 7 percent of the state’s population, bringing us to about 52 percent of Californians residing in the bottom 38 percent of cities. See the chart below.

For the first three volumes, go to:

MOORLACH UPDATE — City CAFR Rankings – Vol. 1 – February 7, 2018
MOORLACH UPDATE — City CAFR Rankings – Vol. 2 — February 8, 2018
MOORLACH UPDATE — City CAFR Rankings – Vol. 3 — February 10, 2018

Last year I proposed eight measures addressing public employee defined benefit pension plans. The deadline to submit bills for the 2018 Session is this Friday. Last week I introduced Senate Bill 1031, which addresses pension plan cost-of-living adjustments. We started this discussion last fall (see MOORLACH UPDATE — Rising Tide — October 5, 2017).

I have recommended this modification for many years, including when I served as a County Supervisor. It’s this simple: If the pension system is not at least 80 percent funded, then cost-of-living adjustments, also known as COLAs, should be put on hold for retirees.

California’s taxpayers are contributing more every year to public employee pension systems. Public employees are paying more out of their biweekly paychecks. But, retirees are not making any sacrifices, while they have the most at risk if the system becomes fiscally unsustainable. Consequently, prospectively, COLAs should be put on hold until the pension plan is in better fiscal shape.

How did we get here? For a math lesson as to why pension systems are demanding higher contributions, see MOORLACH UPDATE — Straight Talk Magazine — March 30, 2011. It’s a great tutorial on how this mess came to be in California.

May I also introduce some of you the the “Rule of 72”? Here is how Investopedia explains it (
The “Rule of 72” is a simplified way to determine how long an investment will take to double, given a fixed annual rate of interest. By dividing 72 by the annual rate of return, investors can get a rough estimate of how many years it will take for the initial investment to duplicate itself.

If retirees receive a 3 percent COLA, then their initial retirement benefits will double in 24 years. Using the example in the Straight Talk Magazine UPDATE, if a city police officer retires at the age of 50, after 25 years of service, and is making $100,000 in his final year, the annual retirement benefit will be $75,000 with the current “3% @ 50” formula. An annual 3 percent COLA means that at age 74 (in 24 years), the retiree will be receiving $150,000 per year. And this retiree also had 15 years of additional earning power, between the ages of 51 and 65. I would suggest that this individual will not go insolvent if the COLA is put on hold for a brief period of time.

Cities are looking for some relief. Temporarily prohibiting COLAs by poorly funded pension plans will assist in keeping the unfunded actuarial accrued liability from ballooning. It will be one more tool in the tool box to assist with the pension crisis. And, it means that all impacted parties are working to assure the promised retirement benefits.

Rank City Population UNP UNP Per Year of
(Thousands) Capita CAFR
350 Concord 128,370 ($75,116) ($585) 2017
349 Placentia 52,268 ($30,490) ($583) 2016
348 Daly City 109,287 ($62,902) ($576) 2017
347 Willits 4,928 ($2,830) ($574) 2016
346 Westminster 93,533 ($52,892) ($565) 2017
345 Manteca 76,247 ($42,550) ($558) 2016
344 Davis 68,740 ($38,119) ($555) 2016
343 Santa Paula 30,654 ($16,936) ($552) 2016
342 Fairfax 7,571 ($4,179) ($552) 2016
341 Morro Bay 10,762 ($5,767) ($536) 2016
340 Pleasant Hill 34,657 ($18,511) ($534) 2016
339 Indio 88,718 ($45,879) ($517) 2017
338 La Verne 33,174 ($17,093) ($515) 2016
337 Napa 80,628 ($41,524) ($515) 2016
336 Sutter Creek 2,582 ($1,320) ($511) 2015
335 Lynwood 71,997 ($36,107) ($502) 2016
334 San Marino 13,467 ($6,745) ($501) 2016
333 Folsom 78,525 ($39,220) ($499) 2016
332 Clovis 110,762 ($54,927) ($496) 2017
331 Desert Hot Springs 29,111 ($14,320) ($492) 2017
330 Garden Grove 176,277 ($86,632) ($491) 2017
329 Rialto 106,528 ($51,934) ($488) 2016
328 Los Alamitos 11,739 ($5,717) ($487) 2017
327 National City 61,210 ($29,694) ($485) 2016
326 Beaumont 46,179 ($22,231) ($481) 2016
325 Pittsburg 69,818 ($33,348) ($478) 2017
324 Red Bluff 14,070 ($6,672) ($474) 2017
323 South Pasadena 25,992 ($12,261) ($472) 2016
322 Fairfield 114,157 ($53,391) ($468) 2017
321 Sebastopol 7,579 ($3,525) ($465) 2016
320 Paradise 25,841 ($12,005) ($465) 2016
319 Manhattan Beach 35,488 ($16,091) ($453) 2016
318 Del Mar 4,297 ($1,945) ($453) 2017
317 Lincoln 48,165 ($21,707) ($451) 2016
316 Gilroy 55,936 ($25,032) ($448) 2016
315 La Habra 62,084 ($27,711) ($446) 2016
314 Novato 54,522 ($24,236) ($445) 2017
313 Ridgecrest 28,349 ($12,569) ($443) 2017
312 Alturas 2,660 ($1,120) ($421) 2016
311 Simi Valley 127,309 ($52,860) ($415) 2016
310 South Gate 98,633 ($40,323) ($409) 2016
309 Milpitas 75,410 ($30,591) ($406) 2017
308 Brawley 26,928 ($10,866) ($404) 2016
307 Union City 73,452 ($28,777) ($392) 2017
306 Guadalupe 7,414 ($2,885) ($389) 2016
305 Victorville 123,565 ($47,007) ($380) 2016
304 Oroville 18,037 ($6,858) ($380) 2016
303 Suisun City 29,295 ($10,521) ($359) 2015
302 Buena Park 83,884 ($29,221) ($348) 2017
301 Turlock 72,879 ($25,383) ($348) 2016

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.