March 17, 2005

By Sen. Tom McClintock

To know what California can be, it's important to remember what it once was.

A generation ago, California's highways were the envy of the world. We had one of the finest school systems in the country and one of the finest university systems in the world. Electricity was so cheap that there was serious discussion of abandoning electricity meters. The state water project promised abundant water supplies to complete the greening of California. Affordable housing abounded at all income levels. California was indeed the Golden State – a land of opportunity and plenty far surpassing every other state in the nation.

Today's liberals tell us that those were the days when Californians were willing to "invest" in their future – unlike these miserly times when we've "starved" our schools, our infrastructure and our government.

But the reality is quite different. To provide that high level of public services 40 years ago, California state government spent $200 for every man, woman and child in the state – or $1,240 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars.

Today, California government consumes $3,200 for every person in the state – two and a half times more in population-adjusted, inflation-adjusted terms.

Put another way, this year state government will spend $9.38 out of every $100 that a state resident earns. That's the biggest chunk out of taxpayers' earnings in California's history.

Californians pay the fourth heaviest taxes per gallon of gasoline in the country – and yet California ranks dead last in per capita spending on its roads. Californians back every classroom with nearly $300,000, and yet only a fraction of these funds reach the classroom. Californians pay among the highest sales and income tax rates in the country, and yet California's credit rating is the lowest in the nation.

Question: Is this the fault of taxpayers for not paying enough taxes, or is it the fault of near-criminal mismanagement of California's ample resources?

The Golden State that we remember from a generation ago – that land of dreams – that place where families could make a fresh start – that state of great highway projects and great water projects and abundant housing and electricity and jobs – is still right here. The only thing that has changed is public policy.

In 1974, a radical and retrograde ideology was introduced into California government during the administration of Gov. Jerry Brown. He called it his "era of limits," but really it amounted to the naive notion that infrastructure encouraged population growth.

Brown canceled the state highway program, literally abandoning projects in mid-construction. He walked away from the state water project. He blocked the construction of new power plants and radically constricted the construction of new housing. Managerially, he unionized the teaching profession and centralized the public schools.

In the intervening decades, the legislature has maintained these policies, and the result has been devastating. Bureaucratic costs have soared, local governments have been usurped and the quality of public services has plummeted.

The task of this generation is to restore to our children the land of opportunity that our parents gave to us. To do so, we must decentralize our service delivery systems – starting by restoring control of our schools to parents and school boards and restoring their management to principals and teachers. Highway taxes must again be earmarked exclusively for our highways. We must roll back the excessive regulations that obstruct our commerce, our housing, our energy and our water supplies. We must dramatically downsize the state's bureaucracies by eliminating overlapping jurisdictions and by abolishing agencies that duplicate local or federal functions.

There is no reason why we can't have balanced budgets, lower taxes and a renewed commitment to public works – because that's what we had just a generation ago. But doing so requires a dramatic change in the most liberal legislature in the United States, and that, in turn, requires political action.

The census data tell us that for the first time in our history, California is watching a net out-migration of citizens. Many of them are finding a better life for their families in the middle of the Arizona and Nevada deserts than they could find in California. No act of God could wreak such devastation upon our state. Only acts of government could do that. And they have.

And that's the good news. Acts of government are within our power as citizens to change.

Sen. Tom McClintock represents the 19th district in the California Legislature.

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

During the week of May 9-13, members of a USDA Forest Service Review Team met with local citizens and Forest Service. The goal for the review was to analyze the Timber Sales Program currently being conducted on the Stanislaus National Forest, and to also look at the Sierra and the Sequoia. After talking with multiple groups in panel-type sessions, the Review Team retreated to Vallejo to sort out all the information they had gathered. It took nearly a month for the team to complete and release a report to the public. After multiple readings of the document, one can only wonder what took so long.

The Report, which overflows with flattery for the local Forest Service staff, is a crude presentation of conflicting statements. At one point, the document compliments the local HQ for the support it has for “maintaining a strong timber sale program.” While several lines down, the report states, “the Stanislaus N.F. needs to increase its timber sale program levels above the levels being offered in fiscal year 2005.” On page 13 of the report, it states, “All 3 national forests are using stewardship contracting authorities…”, but at the end of the paragraph it says “the Sequoia NF has no stewardship contracting projects and no immediate plans to begin using this authority.” They can’t seem to keep their story straight.

All of the “problems” identified in the report should not surprise anyone. The public has been clamoring long and loud about the state of affairs at the Stanislaus Supervisor’s office, the lack of initiative and energy, and the overall malaise which seems to have a stronghold in the upper ranks. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, or a biologist, or even a silvaculterist to see that without a green timber program, the forest can’t be managed. When forest sales are not put out to bid, when sales are dropped for fear of litigation from the left, we can’t expect to have a healthy forest.

Perhaps the most discouraging thing about the document is what is not in it. In all of the twenty-or-so pages, there is only one clear directive given to the Forest staff. And, even this is a mandate that is six months old. In February of 2005 the Washington office instructed all Forests to develop a “new” method of putting together their 5-Year Plan. The new method is called Stewardship & Fireshed Assessment (see related story). Other than that directive, there were suggestions made to the Stanislaus, suggestions without timeframes, due dates or consequences should the Forest managers fail to act. At best, the review report is a starting point. At worst, it is process without substance.

The Sierra Nevada Conservancy will hold a public forum on Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Elks Lodge in Sonora. The Conservancy, a pet project of the Governor’s, is a newly established state agency designed to work with local governments, tribal organizations, non-profit groups, and interested parties to supposedly:

• Provide increased opportunities for tourism and recreation
• Protect, conserve, and restore the region’s physical, cultural, archaeological, historical, and living

Resources

• Aid in the preservation of working landscapes
• Reduce the risk of natural disaster such as wildfires
• Protect and improve water and air quality
• Assist the regional economy through the operation of the Conservancy’s program
• Identify the highest priority projects and initiatives for which funding is needed
• Undertake efforts to enhance public use and enjoyment of lands owned by the public
• Support efforts that advance both environmental preservation and the economic well-being of Sierra residents in a complementary manner

California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman, and Mariposa County Supervisor

Lee Stetson, have invited the public to this open community forum about the Sierra Nevada Conservancy.  This is one of six sub-regional forums that will be held throughout the Sierra.  Your participation will help ensure you know first hand what this agency is all about. Please attend. The more you know, the more informed decisions you can make regarding this agency.

TuCARE Editorial
Stewardship & Fireshed Assessment

– An Integrated Approach to Landscape Treatment Design (Or something like that . . .)

The Forest Service, like all branches of the Government, loves to come up with new acronyms all too often. Recently, they decided that plain, old Forest Management didn’t sound just right, so they have created a new title, Stewardship & Fireshed Assessment, to replace that clearly identifiable, yet oh so mundane, title.

The SFA (as the Forest crowd likes to call it) is really nothing more than a forest management plan that takes a lot longer to develop and has way too much input from uninformed or misinformed bystanders. It smacks of “touchy-feely” and fluff. When our forests are dying because of neglect, what does the Forest Service do? They come up with still another way to stall what must inevitably happen – the harvest of timber growth and salvage, and ultimately, the restoration of the forest.

According to the Forest Service, “Stewardship & fireshed assessment is an interdisciplinary and collaborative process for designing and scheduling site-specific projects consistent with the goals of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, National Fire Plan, and national forest land and resource management plans.” Translation: We (The Forest Service) get a bunch of people to show up to a meeting, talk a lot, do some homework (which is unrelated to real work), and then we play with some computers, AND then we type up reams of paper, send out thank-you’s and then, since we’ve managed to waste close to two years, guess what? It’s time to start all over again. Meanwhile, the forest might have escaped a forest fire, but then again, it might have burnt to a crisp.

The defense and rational of this method include such statements as, “Interdisciplinary teams use a logical, step-by-step process . . .” implying all other, including previous, planning methods were illogical and random. And, thankfully this planning method “documents the interdisciplinary team’s journey” (their word, not mine!). Fortunately, “these assessments do not result in decisions” which would of course mean actual work would have to be done if decisions were actually a result of this elaborate process. And, finally, it should be noted that a regional team will assist in this process to help “refine” and “complement” the locals, while acting as an “extension” and filling in “gaps.” This leads to additional support as the teams “continue to do SFA’s.” The never-ending paper trail and endless meetings will “ultimately feed into cumulative effects analyses,” or something like that.

Meanwhile, back on the forest, 300 million board feet of untended fuels grow annually, compounding daily like some credit card debt gone out of control. It shouldn’t take an integrated approach and collaboration to come up with the solution to our forest health problems. The problem is very simple: There is only so much water and so much nutrition in the soil. The solution: Reduce the overload and there will be plenty of wood for the mills. Reduce the under-story fuel ladders and dense canopy, and catastrophic wildfires will have nothing to feed on. That’s it. Period.