With today’s hearing, the Water and Power Sub-Committee will begin the process of restoring abundance as the principal objective of America’s Federal water and power policy. We meet today to receive testimony from the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Service on their plans for the coming year. We do so in conjunction with our responsibility under the Federal Budget Act to provide guidance to the House Budget Committee as it prepares the 2012 budget and with our responsibility under House Resolution 72 to identify regulations and practices of the government that are impeding job creation and burdening economic growth.

In my opinion, all of these hearings and all of the actions stemming from them must be focused on developing the vast water and hydro-electric resources in our nation. The failure of the last generation to keep pace with our water and power needs has caused chronic water shortages and skyrocketing electricity prices that are causing serious economic harm.

In addition, willful policies that have deliberately misallocated our resources must be reversed.

California’s Central Valley, where 200 billion gallons of water were deliberately diverted away from vital agriculture for the enjoyment and amusement of the 2-inch Delta Smelt is a case in point. These water diversions have destroyed a quarter million acres of the most fertile farmland in America, thrown tens of thousands of farm families into unemployment and impacted fruit, vegetable and nut prices in grocery stores across America.

In Northern Arizona, 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectricity – enough to power a million homes – has been lost due to environmental mandates for the humpback chub.

In the Klamath, the federal government is seeking to destroy four perfectly good hydroelectric dams at the cost of more than a half billion dollars at a time when we can’t guarantee enough electricity to keep refrigerators running this summer. The rationale is to save the salmon, but the same proposal would close the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery that produces 5 million salmon smolt each year.

Meanwhile, funds that ought to be going to water and power development are instead being squandered on subsidizing low-flow toilets, salmon festivals, tiger salamander studies and grants to private associations whose principal activity is to sue the federal government.

We have also thrown hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into wildly expensive conservation programs that do little or nothing to develop new water and power resources.

Those days are over.

It is the objective of this sub-committee to restore the original – and as yet unfulfilled — mission of the Bureau of Reclamation – to develop and utilize our nation’s vast water and hydroelectric resources to build a new era of abundance and prosperity for our nation.

And, I might add, to complete the greening of the west, to tame the environmentally devastating cycle of floods and droughts and to assure the perpetuation and propagation of all species through expansion of fish hatcheries and other cost-effective means.

We will seek to inventory all of our potential water and power resources, establish and apply a uniform cost-benefit analysis to prioritize financing for those projects that produce the greatest benefits at the lowest costs, and to restore the “beneficiary pays” doctrine that assures those who benefit from these projects pay for these projects, protecting general taxpayers of one community from being plundered for projects that exclusively benefit another.

With these policies in place, we can fulfill the Bureau’s original mission, to make the desert bloom and to open a new era in America where water and power shortages – and the policies that created them — are a distant memory.

I also want to acknowledge the past work of the U.S. Geological Survey that produced accurate and reliable data necessary for sound resource policy and management. Today I will merely express the expectation that it will take stronger steps to resist efforts to politicize or compromise its work. I especially endorse Mr. Werkheiser’s statement that “the public deserves to know whether its investments are having tangible results.”

I hope that this administration will become a partner in this new era of abundance rather than an obstacle. The rationing of shortages has never solved a shortage – only a policy of abundance can do that. We have wasted not only money but time, and we can afford to waste no more of either.

Now, the prediction business is, of course, fraught with danger – but not looking ahead is a worse crime in my view.  Two years ago, I said that the economy would be bad for 6 years if Obama was elected.  I said that because the markets understood then and know now that a big government agenda was not the cure that was needed.  They intimately understood what Ayn Rand said years ago that “the cure that is always offered . . . is more of the same poisons that caused the disasters.”  Sure enough, the same poisons have been tried for the last two years and the consensus among the fair minded is that the US economy will be bad for years to come.

One overlooked reason for the national trouble ahead is what government has done to the California economy. The California economy has been crippled because its #1 industry, agriculture, has been crippled by environmental policies that have placed the fate of an imported bait fish over the needs of farmers, employees and families.  By shutting off the water supply to farmers, government is strangling Central Valley farming which is why locals state that “Water = Jobs.”   But the effect hardly stops there.  California is over 16% of the national economy.  So the real equation is “Water = Farming = Jobs = the California Economy ≈ National Economy.”  Put another way, you cannot cripple the California economy and expect the National economy to recover.  All combined, Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer, the Democrat controlled Congress and Barack Obama will only makes things worse.

A re-elected Barbara Boxer will unrepentantly push for ever more environmental regulations (like Cap and Trade) with no more remorse than she is showing today for California farmers.  An elected Jerry Brown will not only double down on that bet but will also sign on to tax increases in an attempt to solve the budget crisis.  Combined with Obama’s coming tax hikes, Brown’s tax hikes will further starve California’s already economically famished economy because Californians are already short on cash.  That will lead to even worse deficits as the California economy sinks even further.  Beyond that, as I wrote not long ago, Brown will roll back the worker’s comp reforms which were key to California’s economy comeback in 2004 and 2005.

Already ranked 50^th in some surveys and nearly as low in others as a place to do business, the increased taxes and regulations which the Killer B’s (Boxer, Brown & Barack) will impose on California can only hurt the prospects for employment.  Keep in mind that California is Facing an “underemployment rate” somewhere around 25%.  That tells you that nearly 25% of the work force either has no work or is vulnerable.  The Killer B’s tax/regulatory combination, in conjunction with the national slow down ensured by the Obama tax increase, could easily push California’s unemployment rate to 16% or more, i.e. move 3 1/2% more people from underemployed to unemployed.

Of course, it does not have to be so.  We could elect people who will try the exact opposite policies, i.e. people that understand that the key to recovering jobs is the same key to achieving economic recovery: lowering the costs to doing business in California.  The Killer’s B’s will never understand that. The only question is whether California voters will.

Even for a committed political observer, volunteer and commentator such as myself, it seems implausible – but true – that the stakes for elections grow with each successive election.  For California, the 2010 gubernatorial election unquestionably could be the most important election ever – and not necessarily for a good reason.  If Jerry Brown is elected, he and his fellow Democrats could deliver a devastating blow to California.

We well know that California’s unemployment rate is above 12%.  We also know that well over 100,000 people are leaving California on a yearly basis.  Beyond that, California faces an exodus of businesses – large and small alike.  So it can be no surprise that state revenues have declined nearly $40 billion over the last three years as a result of the declining taxpayer base.

We also well know why California is having a tougher time than many other states.  In recent years, California is consistently ranked near the bottom of states in which to do business.  According to Joseph Vranich, president of JV Executive Consulting Inc. in Irvine:  “It’s no mystery what causes companies to leave California: High taxes, undue regulation, workers’ comp costs, a legal environment stacked against businesses and lengthy and costly construction permitting requirements.”  Indeed, California finished tied for last in the Country in Forbes’ Overall Tax Burden survey measuring tax burdens and structure.

Could thinks get worse?  Under a Brown Governorship, the answer would have to be: YES.

Keep in mind that Brown has no published or unpublished plan for dealing with California’s many crises – and that uncertainty hurts California businesses as much as anywhere else.  But that won’t be the worst of it.   If Jerry Brown is elected Governor, every business owner in California can be sure that Democrats under Brown would roll back worker’s compensation reform in California to pre-2004 rates.

California small businesses and large employers simply cannot afford the cost explosion that that would entail.  Recently, a Bay Area business owner told me that his company’s workers comp rates rose from $650,000 to $4 million per year before the reforms were passed.  Now his rates are around $950,000 per year in his labor intensive business.  Already facing cash flow issues, he believed that any workers comp roll back would more than jeopardize the jobs of his workers.  Obviously, his company is not alone in that predicament.

Don’t think the Democrats would do such a thing?  Know that they have pushed at least partial rolls backs every year since workers comp was reformed.  Or perhaps you would like to ask the Central Valley, which features cities with unemployment rates more than double the state average, just how bad government policy can be.

Don’t think Jerry Brown would allow it to happen?  Well, given that the unions are funding his campaign and the negative ads on Meg Whitman – do you really think Brown could say no to them?  Are you willing to take that chance?

In sum, the environment for California employers could get worse if Jerry Brown is elected – much worse.  The resulting higher unemployment and higher deficits (even higher than today) could leave California in deep trouble for at least another 6 years – four years of Brown and at least 2 more to recover from that.

Can your business afford that?  Can you afford that?  In my view, California can’t and so we cannot afford Jerry Brown under any circumstances – this year or any other.

Quite frankly, the former media-hound Brown has been hiding because he has nothing relevant to say. Indeed, the most important issues of the day all run counter to Jerry Brown’s current policies. Let me count the ways . . .

1. The Budget/Taxes.  In this perennial saga, California has yet another $20 billion+ budget deficit. The Democrats and their Union patrons want more spending and higher tax rates. The Republicans, including their statewide candidates and Brown’s Republican opponents, want less spending and lower tax rates. The California voters, according to the Field Poll (never known to lean to the Right), want lower spending not higher taxes. What’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Other than saying he will leave it up to the voters to raise taxes (the so-called leader is asking to be led), he has remarkably little to say – and that is one reason he avoids the press and limelight so assiduously – including campaign announcements devoid of those annoying press questions like – would you veto a Democrat sponsored tax increase bill?

2. Jobs. Nevada is the Nation’s #1 business development State. California is either last or second to last when it comes to being employer friendly because of high tax rates and the nation’s most onerous regulatory burden. See the correlation anyone? California, like the nation, faces a simple choice: government jobs or private sector jobs. Government jobs cost money California does not have. Private sector jobs require tax relief and lower regulations. Brown can’t advocate more spending very well and he can’t seriously claim he will go against the unions and the Democrats in the legislature when it comes to taxes and regulations. So what’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Remarkably little.

3. Central Valley Water Crisis. We all know that the Obama administration does not want to use the word “terrorist” lest they offend someone. Instead they use the ludicrous euphemism: “man caused disasters.” Well, if ever there was a man caused disaster, the government imposed disaster on the Central Valley qualifies for that. Politicians and a Judge have sided with an imported bait fish, i.e. whose job it was to be eaten, over people and farms causing depression level unemployment and business losses. The solution is simple and rational: elevate human dignity over a bait fish and turn the water back on. Brown can’t advocate that because he and the Left (if they are not one in the same) don’t believe in supporting people over planned-obsolescent fish. The problem is, as Paul Rodriguez has pointed out at length, fish don’t vote. That’s a problem this time for the Democrats and Jerry Brown. So what’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Remarkably little.

4. Global Warming. Jerry Brown is a big fan of AB32 – California’s job stifling version of a global warming bill. Trouble is – voters are cooling to that bill even faster than the drop in world-wide temperatures – except on the far Left. Unfortunately for Jerry, he can’t go against the Left. So what’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Remarkably little.

5. Voter ID. There is likely to be a Voter ID initiative on the ballot this fall. Over 70% of the voters want Voter ID in California – just not Jerry. He has done all he can to keep it off the ballot. So what’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Remarkably little.

6. Universal Healthcare. The great debate of the day finds California with its own Universal Health Care bill that is projected to cost way over $200 billion dollars per year. That stunning figure is almost 250% of existing revenues. The far Left wants it – as did Jerry Brown during his failed 1992 presidential campaign – but the voters clearly do not. So what’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Remarkably little.

It should be pretty obvious by now that Jerry Brown’s policies are on the wrong side of every major issue of the day facing California – according to the voters – not just Republicans. Rather than buck his patrons on the Left, Jerry Brown has ducked the voters and press. He is proving once and for all that he is not capable of being a leader in difficult times – and there can be no more relevant issue than that.

At least twenty-three members of the public, many of them local private business owners who oppose the PLA, have attended to publicly comment on the proposal.  Two of the board members have never even seen the PLA prior to today, and have asked for a special session to review it.  Despite opposition from the public, and the concern voiced by those two board members, the remaining three board members have moved that the Board of Trustees authorize Chancellor Greg Gray to negotiate the final PLA with the Riverside and San Bernardino Building and Construction Trade Councils. Board Trustees Virginia Blumenthal and Janet Green dissented.

So, without adequate time for all to review the draft, without any backup analysis provided to justify the use of up to $350,000,000 in Measure C taxpayer funds, without giving the public reasonable time to voice their opinions, and with an unemployment rate of over 12% when non-union workers are in even greater need of jobs than union workers…why would three of Riverside’s five board members vote to move forward with a final negotiation anyway? Why the rush? Residents and business owners in Riverside are wondering the same thing, and hope to have the chance to weigh in before the PLA’s final draft is signed.

PLAs claim to save money and promote “labor peace”.  But critics have questioned such claims, citing many cases of PLA projects that experienced increased costs and labor disruptions, and admonishing their discriminatory nature. Even the Orange County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to ban PLAs last November to safeguard against such issues and to ensure fair competition.

I wonder if on-the-job behavior like this also had anything to do with such a decision:

Meanwhile, California continues to spend billions on PLA projects while non-union workers suffer through record unemployment and taxpayers are hit with higher taxes, added fees and service cuts at every turn.

PLA History:  The New Deal Was Then, Greenmail is Now

Project Labor Agreements aren’t exactly new.  Also referred to as Government Mandated Labor Agreements (GMLAs), they have been around since the New Deal in the 1930’s, during the National Recovery Act and Works Progress Administration under Franklin D. Roosevelt. They cover all the workers of a project under a single agreement and almost always require that labor is hired through a union hall. While some non-union workers may be hired, they are typically covered under the one of the PLA’s umbrella unions – they might not be required to become a union member, but will pay union dues and a portion of their wages will be withheld and contributed to the pension fund of that union.

The first official use of a public project labor agreement in California was in 1938 with the construction of the Shasta Dam, part of the famed Central Valley Project (which ironically is more recently associated with the controversy over the water ban over the delta smelt fish).  The California Legislature authorized the Central Valley Project as a state project in 1933, planning to finance it with up to $170 million in revenue bonds. But when California was still unable to finance the project even in its first two years, the state eventually created the Water Project Authority to justify the project as a “national benefit”, to which President Roosevelt then granted millions in executive allocation funds. A series of court battles followed and the Supreme Court placed its responsibility square in the hands of Congress, and it soon became a political football.  As the first of their kind, other Central Valley projects served as the proverbial carrot on a stick to big labor, making the PLA the sought after win.

Since those days, federal and state laws have been passed over time to improve conditions for workers in America, leading to the creation of federal agencies like the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Labor (DOL) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to name only a few.  While labor unions once represented a large portion of workers in America prior to the existence of such laws and agencies, workers now have proper outlets and interest in voluntary union membership has declined.  As such, labor unions are turning again to PLAs as a tool in helping them to survive.

While PLAs were once largely embraced in a marketplace when unions represented a greater majority of workers in the US, today’s PLAs must claim other benefits to be reasonably received by a general public that is no longer largely unionized.  Today’s PLAs purport to extend jobs to non-union workers, when in reality they place new impositions on both employers and workers, such as mandatory union-hall hiring, forcing non-union workers to pay union dues and make contributions to others’ pension funds. With the advent of the strict standards of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), PLAs now typically promise union sanctioned “environmental expertise”, adding another weapon to big labor’s arsenal.  Since most unions receive public funding for environmental training and mitigation, union bosses use it to assert their perceived authority by challenging projects on environmental grounds. They effectively hold a project hostage until the parties agree to a PLA and allow union shops to take control of the project’s labor requirements.  It’s nothing less than blackmail, which is how a new spin on the old term “greenmail” came to be mainstream, as effectively illustrated in the video below.

California Underwater: Despite Financial Crisis, Unions Thrive Under PLA Spending While Non-Union Workers Remain Unemployed

Lately it’s as though progressives are trying to relive the New Deal days, allowing politics, not need, to drive who gets jobs, money, resources and contracts. The influence of politics on governmental decisions and policies is certainly having its impact on how many opportunities are created for the majority of Americans, versus for just a very small subset that are the union workers.

In February 2009, as one of his first duties in office, President Obama signed an executive order that authorized federal executive agencies to use project labor agreements on federal construction contracts with a total cost of $25 million or more.  The order also revoked President Bush’s prior ban on mandatory PLAs, an action he’d taken after congressional hearings produced evidence that PLAs were discriminatory against open-shops and non-union workers, increased costs on most projects and were too often vehicles for abuse .  When the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed only days after Obama’s order, agencies were encouraged to mandate PLAs for all stimulus projects.

Recently, skepticism of PLAs has increased under closer scrutiny of stimulus project awards, and more business journalists have been examining current unemployment numbers, looking at who’s getting jobs from stimulus projects, and at the relation of such issues to unionization statistics, as well as reporting on potential abuses.

California is a prime example of such governing policies that reckon back to the 1930’s, but in a day when the current level of union membership no longer justifies the pro-union policy.  Backed by the State Building and Construction Trades Council (an arm of AFL-CIO), the state is awash in cost-prohibitive union PLAs right now, even in light of its dismal financial situation.  It almost defies logic.

Other PLA spending in California includes:

• The Long Beach Airport Terminal Improvement Project is moving forward with its $35 million PLA, despite its projected $11 million budget deficit, a gasoline tax, parking fee increases, spending cuts and the closure of several fire stations.
• The Northern California Power Agency project’s $432 million PLA will deliver $60 million for labor unions alone
• Under Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a former union organizer himself, Los Angeles has undertaken numerous PLA projects, including the Mass Transit Authority, which has already increased fares and taxes on residents, as it takes on the added cost that a PLA will bring to the project.
• View a complete list of over 400 PLAs implemented in California between 2000 and April 2009

The state faces a $20 billion budget deficit, it issued I.O.U.s in taxpayers’ refunds, and recently Standard & Poor’s lowered its credit rating, following downgrades already made by Moody’s Investors and by Fitch Ratings.

California taxpayers have also been dealt a series of other costs, such as an extra 10% taken from their paycheck withholding, a 5% surcharge on state income taxes, an increased sales tax, and increases in ancillary fees such as vehicle licensing fees.  While they struggle with these cost increases, taxpayers will also foot the bill for the increased costs of PLAs.  Meanwhile, they struggle with one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation.

According to a 2009 report published by the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, UCLA, California accounts for about 17% of all of the United States’ union members, more than any other state.

In California, where 18.3% of the overall workforce is covered by a union, much of the recovery opportunities, including PLAs, are focused disproportionately on creating union jobs.  Where does that leave the other 81.7% of non-union workers who are fighting California’s 12.4% unemployment rate?  In construction, California’s union rate is higher than average 23.1%, which makes it even more difficult for private construction to compete. Despite popular belief that the construction industry is overwhelmingly unionized, only about 16% of America’s construction workers belonged to a union in 2009.  That’s a lot of workers left out of the competition when they need the work most.

The project labor agreements show no signs of slowing down, yet very few jobs for non-union workers, especially those in the private sector, can be found in the pipeline.  Private sector jobs in California had already been in severe decline over the last decade.  Public sector labor agreements, construction project labor agreements, and most recently stimulus programs have crowded out the private workforce. For construction contractors, it’s especially difficult if you own your own business or are a non-union worker. Private contractors also do not have the progressive grassroots organizing network of support that labor unions enjoy – they don’t have hundreds of door-to-door campaigners to support their bid on a project, or to show up at board meetings and town halls on their behalf.  The private sector isn’t only competing with its own government for those jobs, but with the entire progressive machine.

With such a small percentage of unionized workers vs. non-union, it’s rather apparent these impositions are in place not for the workers’ benefit, but for the unions’.

Proponents of PLAs will tout a long-standing history of the success of PLAs, often citing projects like the San Francisco International Airport.  They refer to benefits such as prevailing wage standards, worker protections, jobs for local residents, and the assurance of labor peace during construction projects; they also always promise reductions in cost.  Yet, much of this is anecdotal information and there is little documentation in the way of hard metrics to support such claims.  Instead, PLAs have become a political campaign tool.  President Obama, in signing the executive order earlier this year to reinstate PLAs, stated the following at a Building Trades Legislative Conference in April 2008:

“We need to make sure the government uses project labor agreements to encourage completion of projects on time and on budget. One of the first things George Bush did when he got into office was to ban PLAs. That’s bad for workers and bad for America, and that’s why one of the first things I’ll do as President will be to repeal that ban and put PLAs back into place…We need to invest American resources in rebuilding our nation’s highways, roads and bridges, which will produce thousands of job opportunities for building trades workers.”

(I guess President Obama isn’t familiar with projects like the infamous Boston “Big Dig”).

Yet, a review by Beacon Hill Institute of federal construction projects during the Bush Administration found no instances of labor disputes that resulted in significant project delays or increased costs.

“Our examination of the record produces no evidence of any systematic connection between the absence of a PLA, on the one hand, and cost overruns or delays caused by labor disputes, on the other,” said David G. Tuerck, one of the authors of the study and Executive Director of the Beacon Hill Institute. Therefore, the justifications offered by the Obama Administration for reinstating PLAs are not supported by the evidence.

There are additional studies that also refute the myths of PLA benefits.

• This video provides a very thorough overview of PLAs and examples of how PLAs discriminate against open-shop contractors and minorities.  Additional helpful videos can be found here and here.
• The Project Labor Agreement for the Iowa Events Center: An Unnecessary Burden on the Workers, Businesses, and Taxpayers of Iowa; 2006, Public Interest Institute:  “Despite the implementation of a Project Labor Agreement, the Iowa Events Center project went over its projected budget, was not completed on time, and raised concerns about safety issues.”
• Project Labor Agreements: The New Bid Rigging and Protection Racket; 2001, Public Service Research Foundation
• Government-Mandated Project Labor Agreements in Construction, the Institutional Facts and Issues and the Key Litigation: Moving Toward Union Monopoly on Federal and State Financed Projects; 2000, Dr. Herbert R. Northrup, Professor Emeritus of Management, The Wharton School
• Project Labor Agreements and the Cost of Public School Construction in Connecticut; 2004, Bachman, Haughton, Tuerck; Beacon Hill Institute
• Project Labor Agreements and the Public Construction Costs in New York State; 2006, Bachman, Tuerck; Beacon Hill Institute
• A list of at least twenty other studies can be found at OpenContracting.com

And before any of our readers start ranting that being against PLAs means being against minorities, check your stats.  While blacks and Hispanics represent 23% of the general population, only an average of 8% of construction union members are minorities.  Labor leaders and progressive groups will often insist that PLAs ensure that minority workers have fair access to construction work, yet this is simply untrue.  Open competition however will ensure fair access.  And it is actually the non-union associations and conservative think tanks that have been working tirelessly to change this.  The CATO Institute published a paper by David Bernstein in 1993 titled The Davis-Bacon Act: Let’s Bring Jim Crow to an End, which details the history of how the 1931 prevailing wages law has intentionally excluded minorities from the construction industry and why it should be repealed.  Popular belief has also often been that unions are largely dominated by members with little or no secondary education, when in fact in California specifically, the majority have a college degree or some college.  While many of those are in public administration and education, the majorities also include those in transportation and construction.

Free-market advocacy groups have fought for decades for the law’s complete repeal in the name of anti-discrimination and fair competition.  It might surprise many to know that the only time Davis-Bacon was repealed , on a temporary basis – was by President George W. Bush – during the buildup that followed Hurricane Katrina (yes, I know…Kanye West would be shocked!). Amazingly, it was labor leaders who protested the loudest against that move.

Why?  Because it opened up the playing field to both union and non-union bidders, which is something that unions like the AFL-CIO just cannot have.  And with their heels so firmly dug into California, most don’t expect labor leaders to welcome fair competition there either, especially not while they are enjoying their renaissance of the New Deal days again.

That’s why you, the everyday average citizen and local business owners, in California and elsewhere, need to pay attention to what’s on your town’s voting schedule.  You’re the only ones who can affect real change by speaking up.

Of course, a long time ago, in a place far, far away, the legislatures of individual States of these United States, had a far greater say in the lives of their citizens.  Indeed, for the first 150 years of our existence, the federal government – the Congress and the Courts – had little to say or do in the lives of Americans – the Civil War excluded.

With the advent of the Democrats’ Big Government New Deal, of course, all of that changed.  The Roosevelt Democrats increased the federal budget tenfold – but not without the considerable help of a very activist Supreme Court.  Recall that Roosevelt threatened to pack the Supreme Court which then proceeded through resignations and reinterpretations to redefine our Constitution.  The result was a Big Government takeover the like of which the Supreme Court originally struck down during Roosevelt’s first term.

It also was the dawning of the age of the activist courts which threatens our Liberties to this very day.  Thomas Jefferson, of course, warned us of this possibility.  According to Jefferson:

The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary.  That body, like Gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, & unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is ingulphing insidiuously the special governments [i.e, the states] into the jaws of that which feeds them.

Nowhere could Jefferson’s warning be more true than in California.  In 2005, a federal court took over the administration of California’s prison health care system – literally deciding how the system operates.  At the time, the federal judge “hailed it as a ‘bold and uncharted adventure’ that could last several years.” Doesn’t that sound like constitutional reasoning to you?  And sure enough, he virtually runs the system to this day.

In 2007, a federal judge made a dubious ruling that protects a non-indigenous bait fish – the Delta Smelt – at the expense of the way of life of the entire Central Valley of California.  The ruling has turned off the water for many farms, driven unemployment in some areas as high 40% among certain groups and driven up the cost of food for all of us. 

Now, on October 20, 2009, a federal judge has “halted the state of California’s plan to cut or reduce caregiver services for 130,000 disabled and low-income seniors.”   The cuts were part of an overall solution, however temporary,  to the ongoing California budget crisis.  In stopping the cuts, the federal court has all but ruled that the state of California cannot reduce expenditures in that area because the federal law may not allow it. 

By the logic of this decision, untold billions of the California budget may be exempt from budget cuts. In other and plain words, the California legislature does not have control of its own budget – a federal judge does.  Thomas Jefferson simply must be turning over in his grave.

A long time ago, Jefferson wrote that our Independence was founded on the notion of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – Now we know, that is only true until a federal court tells us otherwise.