I joined the Republican Party a little bit later than most, as a direct result of the messages I heard from Ronald Reagan. When I began my own business, I discovered that most of the things I had been taught in college about government were wrong. As Ronald Reagan said and I quickly learned, government was a lot like a baby; a large appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. I could find precious few government agencies that accomplished their actual mission, and none that did so efficiently. I came to the conclusion that the only way society could actually cure its ills and satisfy its needs was by finding some way other than through government bureaucracy.

The problem is that government eats up so much money. For that reason, when someone wants to help the poor through a private charity, or educate their child in a setting other than a government run school, or tries to pay for his or her own health care, that person is taking care of the problem with the crumbs from the government table. The bureaucrats and politicians eat so much, and provide so little, that they actually hurt the people they are trying to help, and those who are actually helping struggle to find the resources to do the job. The only way to solve society’s problems was to starve the government monster, and let society fill in with the resources left over. The Republicans were the only one talking about starving the monster.

What a difference a revolution makes. The party of small government seems to have forgotten its roots. I don’t wish to be too critical of my party in Congress or the Governor of this state, but if the Republicans are the party of small government, I sure don’t want to see the “party of big government.” With all due respect to those who are making the spending decisions in Washington and Sacramento, they are not exercising a whole lot of restraint.

I understand the temptation. There is not much of a constituency for less spending. Whenever someone tries to restrain spending on any program, those who make money off the program howl, and the good people of society who pay for the program are silent (and therefore seem unappreciative). And, much like the momma pig who satisfies that piglet that bleats the loudest, the politicians satisfies the dogs that howl at the budget door for more money.

Of course, the politician also benefits from this transaction. Politicians obtain and maintain power by granting or withholding the benefits of big government. In fact, it is really hard to determine who the prostitute and the “John” are in this relationship since both the politician and the recipient of government largesse exchange money, power, and benefits, while the taxpayer gets the business end of the transaction. The justification for this scheme is the great benefits the government provides to the taxpayer for the money it takes, but most taxpayers know exactly what they are getting from the politician and the recipient of government largesse, and they are not happy about it.

Since he took office, Governor Schwarzenegger has increased spending in the state by $22 billion, exactly the same as Gray Davis did in his first two years in office. The Republican-controlled Congress increased spending by 33 percent since 2000. Neither of these trends is a good thing, either for the country, for the state, or for our party. The problem is big government. Republicans promised they would starve the monster. They are not.

We are supposed to be different than them. We had better start proving it.

Assemblyman Haynes’ office can be reached at
(951) 699-1113 in Temecula, California
or in the Capitol in Sacramento at (916) 319-2066

The County Legislature now has several new faces who campaigned on the concept of reform, and prudence regarding spending tax dollars. That was a winning issue, and since politics is all about winning, it did the job nicely.

While disappointing, but it should have been expected, one of the first things the Legislature did was to give themselves (and their pals) more funding to make their job easier, and perhaps to pay back political favors.

It is obvious that the old saying: “Charity begins at home,” extends to generosity beginning at home. Some people might consider the expenditure to be somewhat unnecessary, but when you have favors to pay, the ability to make the job easier, and re-election already in mind, it is well worth the taxpayers’ money.

The important thing was to get it done now to give the voters a chance to forget about it two years hence. It obviously takes talented people to salve the wounds caused by taxpayers dipping deeper into their pockets, and perhaps the extra positions will allow the incumbents to do that. After all, politics is all about power and money.

Maybe it is because the so-called outrage of taxpayers talked about last year never materialized. The majority of voters didn’t bother to go to the polls to vote. They are getting what they deserve to get, and that is more of the same type of government that initiated the necessity of having a Control Board to oversee what should not need to be overseen.

To add insult to injury, the Control Board is proving to be an expensive entity in itself. No wonder we have to pay a higher sales tax and face the prospect of higher property taxes next year.

Speaking of sales taxes, when you put out a pie, everyone wants a piece of it. Buffalo wants $30 million to go to them and perhaps some of the other municipalities. The County Executive claims that sharing would raise the county taxpayers’ burden still higher next year. But as those politicians who see a political advantage in the taking, the attitude is “So what!”

What a difference between the campaign rhetoric and the actual performance after the politicians are safely elected! The County Legislature is now a veto proof 12-3 majority for the Democrats. Now we will find out how much difference that will make in government.

Several years ago, this columnist had a discussion with a newly elected female County Legislator and she asked him what he thought about women being involved in politics. The reply was: “I’m all for it. Why should incompetence be limited to one sex?”

Of course this was in jest, but we asked a question in return. “What is the difference between electing Republicans or Democrats? The taxes keep going up and there seems to be a real consistency in the way government keeps running.”

She replied with one of the most honest answers given by a political person. She said: “I guess it breaks down to who gets the patronage.” Now, there is accuracy in media. It would be interesting to hear other opinions on that subject, but after almost thirty years of involvement in the political process, that seems to be a very accurate statement.

It still breaks down to the fault of the citizens. The vast majority refuses to get involved in the political parties to make meaningful changes, and another stupid majority refuses to vote. Politicians can make a good living on the apathy and stupidity of the public and therefore can do pretty much as they choose to benefit themselves.

My leftist friends in the Legislature like to think of themselves as lovers of freedom and the true inheritors of the legacy of our founding fathers. They believe that only they protect the first amendment and the fourteenth amendment (on equal rights), and that they stand between freedom and fascism in California. They believe they are the protectors of the poor and oppressed in our society. Only they have the heart and the head to govern (or so they think).

Pending before the California Supreme Court is the demonstration of their hyprocrisy. A few years ago, the Berkeley City Council got mad at an organization known as the Sea Scouts. While the Sea Scouts are affiliated with the Boy Scouts, they are not governed by the Boy Scouts. They are a completely separate organization. For many years, the Sea Scouts were allowed to berth at the Berkeley Marina for free, along with other nonprofit organizations like the Berkeley Yacht Club. That allowed the Sea Scouts to teach underprivileged children in Berkeley the joys of sailing and the sea.

They have the word “scouts” in their name, however, and they appreciated their affiliation with the Boy Scouts, since it opened doors to areas and people that helped the Sea Scouts with their mission. It is in this affiliation that their problem began.

You see, several years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts could determine their own membership rules. They are a private organization, with the first amendment right to freedom of association, and, if the Boy Scouts did not want homosexual Scout leaders, the Court ruled, the government couldn’t require them to open up their ranks to homosexuals. This rankled the homosexual activists. They wanted to force the Boy Scouts to utilize homosexual scout leaders, calling the Boy Scouts discriminatory for not doing so. The Boy Scouts were unmoved, and to this day, have refused to allow homosexual scout leaders. To punish the Boy Scouts’ intransigence, liberals throughout the country have tried to prohibit the Boy Scouts from using government facilities for their functions.

Enter the Sea Scouts. They have no rule prohibiting homosexuals as leaders, and they are not a part of the Boy Scouts. Not good enough for the Berkeley City Council. The City Council demanded that the Sea Scouts denounce the Boy Scouts. The Sea Scouts refused. The Council cut off the Sea Scouts free-berthing rights. Now, the Berkeley Yacht Club, devoted to subsidizing the rich, gets free berthing, but the Sea Scouts, devoted to helping the underprivileged youth of Berkeley, must pay $500 a month to berth its boat. The teacher who advises the group pays for the berth from his own pocket. So much for liberals helping the poor. Of course they’ll help, if the poor do their political bidding. If they don’t, there will be heck (or the government) to pay.

The Sea Scouts have sued, saying their freedom of association rights (as well as their free speech rights) under the first amendment have been violated. Thus far the courts in the liberal Bay Area have been unsympathetic. The Supreme Court granted them a hearing last month.

Where is the ACLU? Where are the leftist defenders of the First Amendment? What right is more important than the right to associate with whom you wish without fear from the government? What about the poor children of Berkeley? Why won’t the leftists defend them? Because they won’t attack the Boy Scouts. That is the leftist hypocrisy. They’ll protect your rights as long as you agree with them. If you don’t, they will use the entire power of government, and all of their political power to pound you into submission.

That, by the way, is true fascism, not eavesdropping on terrorists. Using the power of government to try and protect innocents from those who might hurt them is legitimate. Using the power of government to enforce political uniformity is wrong, and it is resistance to that attitude that resulted in our revolution.

Let’s hope the Supreme Court does the right thing, and restores the Sea Scouts’ freedom of association. That is specifically protected by the first amendment, as much as some anti-war protesters right to burn the flag.

Assemblyman Haynes’ office can be reached at
(951) 699-1113 in Temecula, California
or in the Capitol in Sacramento at (916) 319-2066

Not being an expert in economics can put a columnist at a disadvantage. It can cause a person to look at utility billings and not completely understand the profit and loss mechanics of running a monopoly. For example, I just received my gas bill for January.

In the first place, I do not understand why the price of natural gas has increased so dramatically because Katrina greatly disrupted the production of gasoline. It was my understanding that natural gas came from underground (much of which is in Canada) and comes from pipelines and does not have to go through gasoline refineries.

The connection of a perceived shortage causing the high prices confuses me. If there was a true shortage, the natural solution would be rationing. However, when prices get to the point where the energy companies make obscene windfall profits, it causes some doubt about the reality of a “shortage.”

The diamond companies set the price of diamonds and most people believe that this is an artificial and arbitrary price for the stones. Many have the opinion that the price is set on the market value, which is what people are willing to pay for a product. If people are dumb enough to pay what is asked, the companies are smart enough to charge more. That type of economics is understandable, even by those who are not experts.

To get back to natural gas prices, I refer to my January gas bill. I live in a small house with new siding and windows. The bill is $218.67 which is rather expensive for heating a small home. Granted, I have a gas stove, hot water tank and dryer, but they don’t get all that much use.

Of the total amount, I pay $161.31 for the commodity, a $1.63 tariff surcharge (that is not explained), $8.95 sales tax, $44.76 for delivery service charge and to add insult to injury, a billing service charge of $2.06.

Talk about corporate gall. They are charging me $2.06 to send me the bill. After getting ripped off for the outrageous cost of providing the product and an extra huge charge for “delivery,” they add another two bucks to send me the bill.

This is a good example of why the NY State Public Service Commission is a useless bureaucracy. It is outrageous that our legislators allow the gas company to add this additional burden to an already overburdened public.

Then there is the delivery charge breakdown. They charge different prices per cubic foot of gas delivered. I don’t know how this is broken down but it varies from about $.27 to $.22 per ccf. There is also a Tariff surcharge of $1.40 and a Weather Adjustment Charge of $1.15. Talk about creative charging for dipping still farther into our pockets!

To consider the delivery charges as being rather extreme, we should remember that the product comes to us by a pipe. The one in front of my house has been there for a very long time. The house was built more than fifty years ago, and I don’t remember having the gas company replacing it since then. If they did, it was so long ago that I fail to find any recollection in my memory bank.

To the best of my knowledge, gas produces very little wear and tear on gas lines. It would seem that it is expensive to install and if one breaks, to repair. However, I think the pipe that is used to deliver my gas has paid for itself many, many times over and it gets no more wear with 100 ccf than it gets with 50 ccf.

By charging by amount, the company makes considerably more money, and in order to pay the outrageous salaries to the officers, they consider it necessary to squeeze the consumer as much as the traffic will bear.

Our legislators should be made aware of the dissatisfaction of the consumer and until they get bombarded with phone calls at the district offices, we can expect to continue to get ripped off by public utilities and energy companies. Higher taxes will be the subject of a future column.

Until our politicians feel some heat from the voters, they do not see the light. If you have a problem with high energy bills, voice your complaint. The phone call to the local office is free. It also works better than a letter.

I have been on a Governor-bashing binge lately, so I thought I would change focus. Not that there is no reason to criticize the Governor, there is. He has proposed a $222 billion bond package and a budget that spends $7 billion more than it takes in. For the fellow that got elected promising to sweep out the spending addicts in Sacramento, it seems he has tasted the spending high, and likes it a little too much. Maybe not yet an addict, but he is certainly starting to chase the dragon.

That being said, the Governor deserves credit for once again taking on a large challenge, even if the strategy is a little flawed. Everyone in this state knows that California has some significant challenges. Our freeways are congested, our schools are overcrowded, we are running out of water, electricity, and gasoline, and we are overrun with people who make too much money by doing absolutely nothing about these problems. By issuing the challenge to build our roads, schools, courts and waterways, the Governor has chosen an ambitious agenda to relieve some level of suffering each of us currently has to endure everyday. That is a good thing.

The problem is the method in which he proposes financing the effort. There is no question that the Democrat-controlled Legislature has done everything in its power over the last 30 years to stifle this state. In 1974, when Jerry Brown was elected Governor, he pronounced his agenda, which was basically – if we don’t build it, they won’t come. So, we stopped building in this state, but the people still kept coming.

From 1950 to 1974, this state built a magnificent freeway system, a water collection and distribution system without rival in the world, a world-class university system, and the best K-12 education system in the entire country. Yet, in 1974, the state’s total general fund budget was $8.6 billion. The state was spending $394 per person, and about $6 for every one hundred dollars of income. Today, the state’s general fund budget is $98 billion; the state is spending $2,609 per person, and nearly $7 for every one hundred dollars of income. With all of that, we can’t seem to find the money to build roads and schools.

The answer is not just to borrow. There is no doubt that the state needs to recommit to rebuilding its facilities, but the plan to do so must be comprehensive, and it must follow the following principles:

(1) The money borrowed must actually be spent on public facilities, not studies. We spend millions of dollars every year on government employees who study, plan, and write reports about building freeways, but never really get around to building them. The money spent must be for bulldozers and asphalt, not killing trees for reports.

(2) Every project for which we borrow money must be completed in 10 years or less. Today, it takes 23 years to build a freeway. Of that 20 years is wasted doing studies, having meetings and writing reports to appease the regulatory bureaucrats. That is simply too long and costly to get the relief we need.

(3) The plan must include some form of pay-as-you-go money. Two years ago, this state was spending $78 billion general funds. Today, the proposal is to spend $98 billion. The state could take half of that money for roads and school buildings, and still have ten percent more money for state services than it did two years ago. Indeed, $10 billion a year for the next twenty years would build as much as the Governor’s proposal, without debt.

Some borrowing may be necessary, but not $222 billion. Some increase in government is inevitable, but not $20 billion worth in two years. Our roads and school buildings deserve our attention, but not at the expense of our children and grandchildren, who will be forced to pay this debt. The principles listed above would solve those problems. The Governor should give them serious consideration.

Assemblyman Haynes’ office can be reached at
(951) 699-1113 in Temecula, California
or in the Capitol in Sacramento at (916) 319-2066