Tag: legislation

Why would wealthy families need school vouchers?

The newly-expanded North Carolina school voucher program – Choose your School, Choose your future – grants tuition assistance to any North Carolina family, regardless of income. Do wealthy families really need financial assistance to choose which ritzy school is best for their kids?

On May 17, 2023, the North Carolina Assembly passed House Bill 823, enthusiastically called Choose your School, Choose your Future. The bill expanded the state’s K-12 school voucher program, originally enacted in 2013 to assist low-income families. The Opportunity Scholarship, as the North Carolina voucher program is called, now grants vouchers to all North Carolina families regardless of income. Grants are on a sliding scale determined by family income, with amounts varying between $3,360 and $7,468 per child per year.

Legislators allocated $354.5 million for the Opportunity Scholarship program’s reserve fund for the 2024-2025 school year, and $416 million for the 2025-2026 year.

Lawmakers included HB-823 in the state’s $30 billion very much delayed and anticipated budget, which Governor Roy Cooper allowed to become law without his signature in September.

This program has received accolades as well as criticism.

Sadly, many traditional public schools are of poor quality and lately mired in controversy regarding race, gender, and sexuality. Children should not be stuck in such schools. The Opportunity Scholarship program is a godsend to lower-income families who cannot afford or who can barely afford private, including religious, schools.

However, back in May 2023, WFAE opinion columnist Tommy Tomlinson came up with an interesting description of the newly-overhauled North Carolina voucher program: “Robin Hood in reverse.” He said,

“At some point, I have a certain grudging respect for the dedication some people have to playing Robin Hood in reverse — taking money from regular folks and handing it to the rich. Their latest maneuver here in North Carolina is a move to provide taxpayer-funded vouchers to any child in the state who wants to go to private school …

Kids from families with modest incomes have been eligible for similar vouchers here for the past 10 years. That, to me, actually makes some sense. It provides an escape route for a kid stuck in a failing school.“

Wealthy families, whose children already attend the “ritziest schools in town” can argue that given the poor quality of public schools they are forced to pay both private school tuition and taxes that support public schools. Vouchers would help level their playing field. However, let us not forget that the working poor also pay taxes, some of which will help pay for school vouchers their wealthy neighbors receive.

Unfortunately, “Robin Hood in reverse” is not the only problem with universal school vouchers.

A worrisome possibility is a significant tuition increase.

North Carolina News & Observer education columnist T. Keung Hui noted in his excellent report of February 15, 2024, that some private schools have already announced tuition increases.

“Private schools across the state are raising tuition and sending information to families about applying for Opportunity Scholarships. How much of the tuition increase is due to inflation or to take advantage of additional voucher funding is unclear. … The tuition rate increases for some schools across the state is more than 10%, which is well above the rate of inflation.”

People who attended college in the late 1980s might recall the shock wave of sudden tuition increases. Reasonably affordable four-year colleges became voracious, pushing students into quagmires of student loan debt. 1987 to 2010 witnessed a 106% increase in college tuition, according to a Mises Institute report dated November 30, 2021.

Coincidentally, the years 1980 – 2010 also saw expansion of college student loans guaranteed by the Federal government. William Bennett, President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Education, provided in 1987 his view for the college tuition increases he witnessed. Bennett’s assessment — what became known as the Bennett Hypothesis — was discussed in Science Direct, December, 2019

“Increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

Scholars have debated the Bennett Hypothesis ever since it was first presented. But even when pitted against other possible reasons for substantial tuition surges — increase in attendance without concomitant growth in institutions, inflation, excessive regulation — the Bennett Hypothesis survives common sense. Is there a valid argument against the view that everybody likes money, and if it is available, most individuals and institutions will take it? Or a valid argument against expecting substantial expansion in school vouchers to have negative effects like those associated with college student loans?

Families should also be concerned about class sizes.

Mr. Hui of the News & Observer indicated an estimated 60% increase in students getting vouchers. Recipients that are already attending private schools will not affect class sizes, but students crossing over from public schools might. Chances are private schools will not rush to expand their facilities to accommodate the crossover population, which could result in increased class sizes.

Vouchers might not be operating on a level playing field.

Lower-income families and their advocates should ask themselves whether universal school voucher programs operate on a level playing field.

By way of comparison: Progressive advocates for poor and minorities often oppose voter ID requirements, citing that poor and minority voters face greater difficulties obtaining IDs. Would the same difficulties apply to obtaining school vouchers? Might more affluent, more educated families possessing greater resources hold advantages over the less fortunate?

Hopefully, in the interest of fairness, the priorities in receiving vouchers contained in HB-823 will lower any advantages held by wealthier families. Families whose children were voucher recipients prior to HB-823 (when there were income limits) will enter a voucher lottery first, followed by lower-income applicants; the more affluent applicants will enter the lottery last to receive what funds are left in the year’s allocation.

Lastly, do the wealthy really need vouchers?

The common-sense answer is clearly “No.” The title of House Bill 823 — Choose your School, Choose your Future – although catchy, is disingenuously applicable only to lower-income families. It is difficult to imagine circumstances in which wealthy families need vouchers to choose which ritzy school is best for their children.

Indeed, it is unfair that families with children who attend private schools pay both tuition and taxes that support public schools. However, universal school vouchers possess an unfortunate aura of benefits for the rich.

Conceivably a better idea might be to pass legislation absolving parents with K-12 children in private schools from paying taxes that support public schools, limiting vouchers to very low-income families living in poor-performing school districts, and improving the performance and cost effectiveness of public schools by practicing the good old focus on “reading, writing, and arithmetic.”

Picture: The beautiful Groton School in Groton, MA. Founded in 1884. Educating 380 students, grades 8-12.

A Nation of Immigrants: That was then

We are a nation of immigrants. But, 12 million immigrants that arrived at Ellis Island from 1892 through 1954, that was then.  The 2,063,692 undocumented immigrants that crossed U.S. borders in 2023, this is now. Different numbers and different worlds.

Razor and concertina wire continue to go up along the Texas border with Mexico, and the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States continues unabated.  Meanwhile, President Joe Biden says, “I’ve done all I can do.  Just give me the power.  Give me the border patrol … “  And all the while, Congress and Senate bicker over border solutions that make little sense anyway.  

Illegal border crossings have become not only another crisis, but also another divisive issue among Americans.  Contentious pro/con arguments abound.  Here are some: 

*   Pro – We are a nation of immigrants.  Con – The country cannot sustain the current level of undocumented immigrants. 

*   Pro – Immigrants of all kinds contribute to the labor force and thus to GNP growth.  Con – Most unauthorized border crossers are not self-sufficient, and the costs to taxpayers they incur outweigh contributions they make. 

*   Pro – America is humane and cannot turn away people escaping poverty and violence.  Con -Every cent that goes towards being humane to unauthorized border crossers is every cent not applied to current lawful residents. 

Perhaps the most often used argument in favor of the current liberal border policies is that we are a nation of immigrants. 

Indeed, immigrants have always been attracted to the U.S., mostly because of this country’s fairly strong adherence to a Constitution that protects individual liberties, and a largely market-based successful economy.  Thus, former President John F. Kennedy, when still Senator from Massachusetts, coined the phrase “A Nation of Immigrants” in a 1958 essay, which was later publishes posthumously as a book in 1964.

The story told by John F. Kennedy about his Irish-born great-grandparents could be told about millions of immigrants who have contributed mightily to the economy and culture of the U.S.

However, it is worthwhile to place in context John F. Kennedy’s classic essay on immigration.  Here are some statistics that might help:

The numbers.

*  The U.S. Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Populations of the United States 1850-1990 indicates in 1850 (around the time the Kennedys first settled in the U.S.) there were 2,244,602 foreign born individuals residing in the U.S., 9.7% of the total population. 

*  U.S. Customs and Border Protection Stats and Summaries indicates total FY 2023 nationwide encounters (apprehensions) were 2,063,692.

Nationwide Border Patrol encounters in one year (FY 2023) are almost as high as the total number of foreign-born people living in the U.S. in 1850. 

*  The U.S. Customs and Border Protection historical figures 1925-2020 indicate total FY 1958  nationwide Border Patrol encounters (apprehensions) were 40,504.

The 1925-2020 Border Patrol nationwide apprehension figures fluctuated considerably from year to year (lowest in 1934 10,319; highest in 1986 1,692,544; and last in 2020 405,036).   But the 1958 figure 40,504 serves to put into context the time of Kennedy’s essay vs. today (FY2023  2,063,692 apprehensions).

The costs.

There is a misconception that government at the federal level does not provide public assistance to undocumented foreign-born individuals.  Although there are restrictions, the federal government does provide plenty of taxpayer-funded programs that benefit undocumented aliens.  Information on the following programs can be found on the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

*   Unaccompanied Children Program:  By law HHS must assume custody and provide care for children under 18 who enter the U.S. undocumented and unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, and who have no parent or guardian in the U.S. 

*   Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):  The federal government provides grants to states, DC and territories that can be used with flexibility to help low-income families with children.  (There is no indication that states cannot use TANF grants to assist low-income undocumented families with children). 

*   Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):  This federal nutrition program is available to victims of trafficking, Cuban or Haitian entrants under the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980.

*   Head Start and Early Head Start:  This program is in the Office of Head Start (OHS), within the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  It is not considered a federal public benefit, and any child whose family qualifies under income limits can participate regardless of immigration status.

In addition to the social costs mentioned above, the federal government funds immigration courts, border agents, medical emergencies at the border, processing centers, and grants to non-federal entities to support border and interior communities receiving migrants through the Shelter and Services Program (shelter for apprehended and released undocumented border crossers). 

What services to undocumented immigrants cannot be funded with federal money, several states and localities fund them with state and local taxes.  As of November 2023, California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, Colorado, and the District of Columbia offer some form of state-funded health coverage to all residents regardless of immigration status.  12 states offer health coverage to income-eligible undocumented children.

As in the case of the federal government, states also bear costs of providing shelter, food and emergency medical care to undocumented immigrants, as Texas Governor Greg Abbot has made abundantly clear!  In addition, states bear costs educating all children.

Obviously, we are talking here about immigrants who have limited education and resources, not about university postgraduates from well-healed families on expired visas or arrivals by private jet.  And obviously, many of the former magnificently rise above their circumstances. 

During his testimony on September 13, 2023, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget, Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation made the following observations.

“The current net fiscal cost of illegal aliens in the U.S. is between $84 and $94 billion per year. This means that illegal aliens receive $84 to $94 billion more in government benefits and services than they pay in total taxes.”

“The real economic test of any immigration policy is whether it makes current lawful residents better off by raising their after-tax incomes. Both low skill immigration and illegal immigration in general harm current citizens and lawful residents by placing substantial added burdens on U.S. taxpayers.”

The last of these two observations should give us pause.  First, let’s assume Mr. Rector’s calculations are correct.  Secondly, let’s note he does not seem to be accounting for illegal workers who pay into Social Security and Medicare but cannot receive benefits from either.  Still, given the verdict of illegal immigration’s “general harm” to lawful residents (native born and lawful foreign born), should we allow our humanity, compassion, and awareness that we are a nation of immigrants override our economic best interests?  The tax well is not inexhaustible and neither is the borrowing well; therefore, we need to choose beneficiaries of limited resources thoughtfully.

The workforce.

The often-used argument that illegal immigrants help fill jobs nobody else wants is correct.  As Robert Rector indicated in his testimony, illegal immigrants on average lack education and resources, limiting them to low-paying, back-breaking work.

Another argument is that illegal aliens help replenish a shrinking workforce like that of the U.S.  That is also correct.  The U.S. is experiencing a declining birth rate, so children of immigrants – lawful and unlawful – will be welcomed in a future workforce. 

The nostalgia.

Images of the Statue of Liberty welcoming “the huddled masses” and of heroic families literally stepping into the unknown at Ellis Island generate empathy towards the brave souls wading rivers and climbing over barbed wire. 

But the 12 million immigrants that arrived at Ellis Island from 1892 through 1954, that was then.  The 2,063,692 undocumented immigrants that crossed U.S. borders in 2023, this is now. Different numbers and different worlds.

Pictured:  Concertina wire with shreds of clothing, indicating border crossers climbed over the wires to enter the U.S.  The crowd near the wire will probably attempt the same feat.  Picture by Omar Ornelas of the El Paso Times is from Time article Along Texas’ floating border barrier, migrant children left bloody by razor wire, July 23, 2023. 

Is North Carolina getting too Republican or too Democrat

As a California expatriate now residing in North Carolina, I can attest that any state heads for doom when it becomes “too” anything – too conservative, too progressive, too Democratic, too Republican.

California, the once Golden State known for sunny beaches, breathtaking scenery, and unbound opportunities, is now best known for unaffordable housing, high taxes, and uncontrolled homelessness. California became too progressive. It fell victim of the uni-party syndrome.

Should one be surprised? No. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. In this case it is corruption of judgement. Most political leaders are fairly decent people. However, temptation to submit to special interests, to be part of the in-crowd, to outdo the doers is too great when there is strength in numbers. Unopposed thought and actions often become extreme – because they can.

North Carolina at present is reasonably balanced politically, but…

As of October 2022, there were 34% registered Democrat voters, 30% Republican, 36% Unaffiliated, and 0.7% Libertarian. The state’s executive branch is reasonably balanced as well: Democrat Governor, Republican Lieutenant Governor, Democrat Attorney General, Democrat Secretary of State, Republican State Treasurer, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction.

However, Republicans control both chambers of the North Carolina legislative branch. The state’s House of Representatives enjoys a Republican supermajority with veto power. North Carolina’s Supreme Court – the body tasked with interpreting laws passed by the legislative chambers – is majority Republican.

With such majority and veto power since April 2023 (when a Democrat legislator switch her affiliation to Republican), Republican legislators easily passed an expected slate of bills: lowering the threshold when legal abortions can be performed from 20 weeks to 12 weeks; tightening elections laws, like requiring voter ID and ending grace period for counting absentee ballots; prohibiting health care professionals from administering gender enhancing drugs or performing gender transition surgery on minors under 18; prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in women’s leagues.

These are well intentioned bills meant to protect the unborn, children who are not fully cognizant of their desire to transgender, female athletes that should not be made to compete with biological males, election integrity, etc. The problem is these bills are broad, one-size fits all, and in some cases draconian.

Perhaps, compromise between legislators of different parties might have better considered unintended consequences of these bills – such as doctors making a fatal decision not to perform an abortion for fear of losing their license. (The Just Vote No Blog discussed the potential collateral damage inherent in the abortion and transgender bills).

One additional provision was not expected, or even noticed by most voters, since it was buried in the 625-page budget passed September 22, 2023. The provision states:

“… the custodian of any General Assembly record shall determine, in the custodian’s discretion, whether a record is a public record and whether to turn over to the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, or retain, destroy, sell, loan, or otherwise dispose of, such records.”

Legislators are custodians of their own records, and can now destroy anything that might look bad in the eyes of voters.

Even more surprising was the inclusion of casino expansion outside of tribal lands in the 2023-2024 budget. Did legislators figure placing casino expansion in a stand alone bill that would properly go through committees never pass? Maybe. So, they placed the bill in a highly anticipated budget, containing highly anticipated Medicare expansion and teachers’ raises. Interestingly, the ploy did not succeed because Republicans did not agree on it among themselves.

Misguided legislation occurs when circumstances allow them to happen. A legislative supermajority can be fertile ground.

In California, anyone can trace the state’s ills to poorly considered legislation.

For example, homelessness could be considered California’s most serious problem. Vast areas of once busy, clean streets in the state’s downtowns now serve as homeless encampments. Popular hotels that once served California’s tourist and convention industry, now house the homeless at taxpayers’ expense.

Lenient voters, without much opposition, allowed for passage of lenient laws intended to “help” the homeless. The number of government agencies and non-profit organizations replete with employees dealing with homelessness and drug use grew exponentially. Finding a real solution and putting thousands of these employees out of work seems unlikely.

Hopefully, it is not entirely true that “as goes California, so goes the nation.” Although one could take note that North Carolina’s left-leaning strongholds like populous Wake County are already busy converting hotels into homeless shelters.

Our nation’s Founding Fathers were not at all keen on political parties.

Wisely, our Founders did not mention political parties in our Constitution, and strongly warned against them. One of the most emphatic of many quotes on the subject is that of John Adams,

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

That is not to say that our Founders advocated that everyone hold the same ideas! What they preferred was a system under which leaders (and voters) thought for themselves, free of ideologies. Thomas Jefferson expresses this sentiment unequivocally,

“I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”

Jefferson sounded the alarm against vain and destructive ideology – groupthink – and advocated careful individual thought.

A leader or a voter able to think independently, is more likely to listen to divergent opinions, work towards compromise, and avoid unfortunate unintended consequences.

Politically unaffiliated voters, growing exponentially in every state, might be channeling Thomas Jefferson and his fellow Founders. Let’s hope so.

Pictured: 19th century painting by American artist Caleb Bingham. Notice that voters are telling the official who and what they are voting for, since ballots were not secret. Needless to say, opportunities for pressuring voters were great.

North Carolina, rent control is not a solution

State Senator Linda Grafstein recently introduced Bill 255 aimed at repealing North Carolina’s prohibition of rent control. Surely, Senator Grafstein is aware of the inefficiencies inherent in rent control?

Recently North Carolina state Senator Lisa Grafstein (Democrat – Senate District 13), submitted Bill 255, Act to Permit Local Governments to Enact Rent Control. Bill 255, if enacted, will repeal Statute 42-14-1 Rent Control, and allow municipalities to enact any form of rent control.

Statute 42-14-1 prohibits North Carolina jurisdictions from implementing rules that interfere with the rental of private property:

No county or city as defined by G.S. 160A‑1 may enact, maintain, or enforce any ordinance or resolution which regulates the amount of rent to be charged for privately owned, single‑family or multiple unit residential or commercial rental property.

Senator Grafstein’s reason for introducing this bill is the usual one: rising rental costs are causing financial hardships. Indeed, that is the case, especially since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2019. Rent control is the easiest way to show constituents a representative is “doing something.”

Rent control is also an inefficient way to address housing costs.

Unfortunately, rent control is also plagued with consequences and uneven results. Renters under rent control love their housing cost stability. Lower-income workers with hopes of stable housing costs support rent control. On the other side of the coin, landlords who are unable to pass their rising costs to tenants due to rent control seek solutions detrimental to tenants: poor property maintenance, raising rents on units not under control (thus raising overall rental costs), or withdrawal from the controlled market.

Given rent control’s uneven consequences, opinions on it vary widely. Here are two seemingly heart-felt quotes.

…our family was always able to afford a roof over our heads, because we were living in a rent-controlled building. That most minimal form of economic security was crucial for our family. Senator Bernie Sanders, CNN Opinion, July 30, 1919.

In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing. Assar Lindbeck, The Political Economy of the New Left, 1972.

While lower-income residents, especially those in more progressive cities, support rent control in hopes of stabilizing their housing costs, economists generally agree controls are destructive. Here is a good summary of the challenges economists see in rent control. The author is economist John Phelan in his essay 81% of economists agree that rent controls are bad policy, Center of the American Experiment, December 18, 2018.

… there are, in fact, areas where the economists’ cacophony dies down and they speak with more or less one voice.

One such area is rent control. This proposal – to cap the price landlords can charge tenants – crops up perennially as a solution to high rents. This is mistaking the symptom for the illness. When prices are high they are sending you information. They are telling you that demand is high relative to supply. If you want to do something about this, act to either reduce demand or increase supply. Either way, trying to fiddle with the signal makes no more sense then trying to slow down your car by breaking the speedometer.

But fiddling with the signal is expedient if not effective.

Decreasing demand for housing or increasing supply are solutions to high rents more complex than implementing rent control. Decreasing demand requires decreasing population growth, a solution not embraced by governors or legislators. Increasing supply (and growth) sounds good to state leaders, but their efforts are very often met with public outcry from residents rejecting loss of open spaces, increased traffic, and change in neighborhood character.

Thus, legislators sometimes opt for rent control – even though rent control seldom works as intended.

At present, two states, California and Oregon, plus the District of Columbia have state-wide rent control ordinances. Seven states allow local rent control: California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Maine, Oregon, and Minnesota. California, New York and New Jersey have the highest rents in the nation.

Most certainly Senator Linda Grafstein is aware of challenges inherent in both rising rents and rent control. Hopefully, so are her constituents.

Pictured: From widely circulated videos of protesters in Charlotte, NC, on January 25, 2023. Protesters were demanding accountability from corporate landlords; specifically, a stop to the growing ownership of homes by corporate landlords, improved building maintenance, and a 3% cap on rents.

Who stole Arbor Day?

In 1885, Nebraska declared Arbor Day a state holiday, to be celebrated on April 22. Within the next 20 years, Arbor Day was celebrated in most states. Tree-planting on this holiday remained popular, until the 1970’s. Then events overshadowed it.

A question meriting even more attention than who stole Arbor Day is “Why?” Who would want to hijack a holiday? Half a century after the takeover, events have developed sufficiently for a reasonable guess.

The story started way back in 1854.

In 1854, a journalist named Julius Sterling Morton and his wife Caroline moved to the wind-swept territory of Nebraska. There were few trees to serve as windbreaks, and few trees to protect soil from erosion or crops from burning in the sun.

For several years, Morton editorialized on the benefits of trees and encouraged his fellow Nebraskans to plant trees. As part of his campaign, Morton proposed an Arbor Day.

In 1885, Nebraska declared Arbor Day a state holiday, and April 22 the date of annual observance. April offered ideal weather for planting trees, and the 22nd of April was J. Sterling Morton’s birthday. By that time, Morton had led the planning of more than 1 million trees.

Within the next 20 years, Arbor Day was celebrated in all states of the U.S., except Delaware. The Arbor Day concept also spread outside the U.S., to Japan, Europe, Canada, and Australia.

Enter Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin.

In 1969, Senator Gaylord Nelson saw the opportunity to capitalize on a populace spooked by environmental ruin. Rachel Carson’s widely read Silent Spring, published in 1962, lifted the veil that theretofore had hidden massive pollution caused by pesticides. In January of 1969, an oil well off the pristine coast of Santa Barbara, California, blew up, and hundreds of images of aquatic animals covered oil flooded the airwaves.

In the same year as the Santa Barbara oil spill, Senator Nelson started organizing nation-wide rallies to bring attention to what was happening to Mother Earth. The day he picked for the coordinated rallies was April 22, for the purported reason that young college students, who were expected to play a big role, would be on spring break. April 22 was also the original day for Arbor Day celebrations already established throughout the nation. (Critics of Earth Day point out that April 22 is also Vladimir Lenin’s birthday, but any connection between the environmental movement and abolition of private property shall be left for another day.)

Earth Day 1970, with its catchy slogan “Give Earth a Chance” and heavy promotion, was a success. An estimated 20 million people attended various rallies and festivities.

Meanwhile, Richard Nixon promoted environmental legislation.

President Richard M. Nixon embarked on a series of environmental legislation. He signed the National Environmental Policy Act (January 1970), creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (December 1970), Clean Air Act (December 1970), Marine Mammal Protection Act (October 1972), Endangered Species Act (December 1973).

As part of his environmental plan, Nixon signed two proclamations:

Proclamation 4042, dated April 2, 1971, designated the period of April 18 through April 24, 1971, as Earth Week.

Proclamation 4126, dated April 24, 1972, designated the last Friday of April 1972, April 28, as National Arbor Day.

These celebrations today continue, but at different levels.

Today, Arbor Day is still observed by avid supporters on the last Friday in April, as well as on several other dates in different states. The Arbor Day Foundation, a 501(c)(3) organization, claims more than 1 million members.

However, Earth Day, remains much more visible, and some have given it the mantle of fighting climate change.

The Earth Day Network (Earthday.org), a 501(c) corporation, whose mission is to “Broaden and diversify the environmental movement worldwide”, picked “Invest in our Planet” as the theme of Earth Day 2023. Its press release states,

Investing in a green economy is the only path to a healthy, prosperous, and equitable future. Human influence is unequivocally to blame for the warming of the planet and the sad truth is some forms of climate disruption will be felt for centuries to come. However, we must collectively push away from the dirty fossil fuel economy and old technologies of centuries past – and redirect attention to creating a 21st century economy that restores the health of our planet, protects our species, and provides opportunities for all.

On April 21, 2023, President Joe Biden issued A Proclamation on Earth Day, 2023.

On Earth Day, we celebrate the modern environmental movement that kicked off 53 years ago, when millions of Americans of every age and background first rallied together to change our laws and become better stewards of our planet …

This work has never been more urgent. Climate change is a clear and present danger — in the words of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, it is a “code red for humanity.

The last Presidential Proclamation helping to celebrate Arbor Day appears to be that of President George H.W. Bush in 1990.

It would have been nice if both celebrations remained popular.

Arbor Day and Earth Day occupy different spheres of influence. Arbor Day incentivizes individuals to develop personal awareness of the benefit of trees in absorbing carbon dioxide, combating soil erosion, protecting people and crops from sun overexposure, and adding beauty. Earth Day has the much broader objective of fixing the environment by any means necessary.

Senator Gaylord Nelson could have meant well when he chose to celebrate Earth Day on the same day as Arbor Day had been celebrated for more than 80 years – perhaps as a nod to J. Sterling Morton’s birthday.

But surely Senator Nelson must have considered the possibility that the massive publicity received by Earth Day would overshadow Arbor Day. Environmental action by any means necessary?

Pictured: Arbor Day celebration in New York City, 1908.

DA Bragg’s case against Trump: dubious

Progressive New York DA Alvin Bragg presented his case against Donald Trump. Unfortunately for him, even the liberal media has pointed to the pitfalls in the case.

Alvin Bragg’s 2020 campaign for New York County DA included a promise to “get Trump.” He is trying to deliver on his pledge by filing a pile of charges against the former President. Unfortunately, even the liberal press, known to turn cartwheels defending progressive DAs like Bragg, is skeptical.

Very skeptical.

Vox explains the root of the skepticism in its article of April 4, The dubious legal theory at the heart of the Trump indictment, explained. A few words can summarize:

“The actual felony counts arise out of allegedly false entries that Trump made in various business records in order to make the payment to Daniels appear to be ordinary legal expenses paid to Cohen.

But Bragg built his case on an exceedingly uncertain legal theory. Even if Trump did the things he’s accused of, it’s not clear Bragg can legally charge Trump for them, at least under the felony version of New York’s false records law.”

The HuffPost, while seemingly expressing hopeful thoughts of a Bragg success, states in its April 4 article How The Manhattan District Attorney Ended Up Charging Donald Trump With Felonies,

“There are potential pitfalls for DA Alvin Bragg in the legal theory he is using to charge the former president with 34 felony counts.”

Conservative Washington Free Beacon seems to have had a field day quoting liberals in its article of April 5, Even the Liberal Media Aren’t Buying Alvin Bragg’s Bogus Trump. Possibly the best quote is,

“[Bragg is] plunging forward with a premise that has given pause to even some of Mr. Trump’s toughest critics.” — Charles Savage, New York Times

And there is more.

Trump is accused of violating a state law that makes it a crime to falsify business records with the intent to defraud, specifically to conceal another crime. The concealment of another crime turns the misdemeanor of falsifying business records into a felony. A felony conviction is what DA Bragg wants, even if he must stretch facts and laws. And stretch he does.

  • The alleged other crime is influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election by arranging for hush money to keep two women from divulging their affairs with Trump. But Trump was running for a federal office, so it is questionable whether Bragg can bring state charges based on an alleged federal violation.
  • Bragg claims Trump violated a New York election law that makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. But this law is not mentioned in Bragg’s charges.
  • Trump’s final payment of hush money was in 2017. The statute of limitations for the felony charge of falsifying records to conceal another crime is 5 years. The statute of limitations for the misdemeanor charge of falsifying records is 2 years.
  • Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, made the hush money payments on behalf of Trump, and Trump then reimbursed Cohen, calling the reimbursement “legal expenses.” The Feds charged Cohen with violation of campaign finance law. But the legality of the charge was never tested in court since Cohen quietly went to prison without contesting the charge. Trump could challenge the legality of the charge now. If the hush money payments are not deemed illegal, then there is no violation of campaign finance law for Bragg to hang his felony charge on.

One could wonder why bring dubious charges.

DA Bragg is simply following a script prescribed by those who do not wish their long-standing power disturbed by Trump: just keep throwing stuff at him until, 1) he quits, or 2) voters can no longer stand the turbulence and want Trump gone from public life.

It really does not matter what is thrown – a lineup of accusing ladies (we are talking back in 2015), claims of Islamophobia, impeachments, treason, inciting violence, too many Tweets.

In all fairness, it should be mentioned that Donald Trump’s penchant for creating chaos provides good cover for the extreme actions taken against him. However, it should also be mentioned that Trump supporters view chaos as means to reform. Alvin Bragg may have just helped to ensure Donald Trump’s return to the Presidency.

Pictured: New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg announcing his charges against former President Donal Trump.

Choosing life is admirable, but so is choosing mercy.

The rash of state anti-abortion laws popping up since the overturning of Roe v Wade has led to heartbreaking situations in which an expectant mother must carry a fatally abnormal baby only to bury him at birth.

When an ailment is rare, it is placed way down in everyone’s awareness list – unless the ailment strikes home. That situation has appeared and will continue to appear as a result of the rash of state anti-abortion laws popping up since the overturning of Roe v Wade.

A recent case in the news serves as example. A Florida expectant mother carrying a baby with a rare and fatal abnormality referred to as Potter syndrome, has found herself with no other choice than giving birth then surely burying her dead infant. This tragic scenario comes in the wake of Florida’s new law, “Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality Act,” HB 5, passed by Florida’s Legislators in 2022 and signed by Governor Ron DeSantis.

Potter syndrome, present in 1 per 2000-5000 births, is considered fatal at or shortly after birth. The U.S. National Library of Medicine describes it as follow,

Potter syndrome is a fatal congenital disorder characterized by the changes in physical appearances of neonate due to oligohydramnios caused by renal agenesis and impairment. It is incompatible with life as neonates with Potter syndrome have pulmonary hypoplasia that leads to respiratory distress within an hour of birth.

In other words, babies with Potter syndrome have abnormal kidneys or no kidneys at all (bilateral renal agenesis), which prevents production of the amniotic fluid that keeps them afloat in their mother’s uterus and helps organs, including lungs, develop. Underdeveloped lungs (pulmonary hypoplasia) mean babies cannot breathe outside the womb and die.

Suspicion of anomalies may arise during a standard first-trimester ultrasound performed around 4-12 weeks of pregnancy. In the case of the Florida mother in question, a standard ultrasound performed at 11 weeks and 6 days did not show any abnormality. Her second-trimester ultrasound (usually, these are high-resolution anatomy scans) at 23 weeks did show lack of amniotic fluid and several abnormalities. A third diagnostic scan at 24 weeks showed the baby had no kidneys, and the diagnosis of Potter syndrome was made.

Although this was a very much wanted baby, the mother, Deborah Dorbert, and her husband Lee Dorbert decided to end the pregnancy, since they were given no hope their baby would survive past a few hours after birth. They thought that although the pregnancy had gone past the 15-week limit imposed by HB 5 – note the heartbreaking diagnosis was done at 24 weeks of pregnancy — the law did provide for an exception in the case of “fatal fetal abnormality.”

However, the Dorbets’ doctors felt they needed to investigate the legal ramifications of HB 5. After doing so, they decided the wording of HB 5 was uncomfortably unclear, and refused to perform the abortion.

Indeed, unclear it is, whether by sloppiness or design. HB 5 says:

(1) … A physician may not perform a termination of pregnancy if the physician determines the gestational age of the fetus is more than 15 weeks, unless one of the following conditions is met …
(c) The fetus has not achieved viability under s. 390.01112 and two physicians certify in writing that, in reasonable medical judgement, the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality.

Section 390.01112 of the Florida Statutes requires that a physician perform and record exhaustive examinations to determine fetus viability. Should the fetus be viable, the physician must exercise as much care and professional skill as he would delivering a baby not intended for abortion.

Abortion laws like HB 5 are more form than substance.

Laws like HB 5 have the buzzwords – life of the mother, fatal fetal abnormality – but not the intent of finding optimal medical outcomes.

Diagnostic tests that can accurately detect fetal abnormalities are usually done around 18-20 week of pregnancy; HB 5’s prohibits abortion after a fetus’ gestation age of 15 weeks. Such a situation is even more unsound in states that have adopted “heartbeat” laws, with limits around 6 weeks of gestation.

HB 5 requires exhaustive reporting that could prompt physicians to err on the side of not performing a medically necessary abortion: “The physician must document in the pregnant woman’s medical file the physician’s determination and the method, equipment, fetal measurements, and any other information used to determine the viability of the fetus.”

These laws are more Christian evangelical religion than medicine

The U.S. Constitution clearly separates secular laws from religious laws in the First Amendment. Yet, at the signing ceremony of HB 5 into law, Governor DeSantis said, “This will represent the most significant protections for life that have been enacted in this state in a generation.” Several religious leaders attended the ceremony and expressed delight at HB 5 becoming law.

“I see this as the beginning of what is yet to come. It is a step in the right direction..” Leidy Rivas, director of Catholic Charities of Central Florida’s Culture of Life office. April 21, 2022.

Not all religions interpret “life” as Governor DeSantis does, and several religious leaders have filed suit against HB 5.

The Rev. Tom Capo of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Miami, whose motion now rests with Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit, has skillfully pointed out that HB 5 fails “to account for the diverse religious views of many Floridians. . . whose faith leads them to take a very different view of when life begins and to counsel abortion.” New legal challenges to Florida’s abortion law, MSNBC, October 18, 2022.

Respect for life, even unborn life in the view of evangelical Christianity, is admirable. But so is mercy.

Luke 6:36 “Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”

Leaving a mother no choice but to give birth to her baby only to bury him is far from merciful.

Friendly advice from a former Californian

California’s handling of its population growth resulted in astronomical housing costs and an exodus of residents. Hopefully, North Carolina will handle its current growth a lot better.

North Carolina is a beautiful state. It has ample open space and homes surrounded by lovely woods. It is strong economically, business friendly, rich in job opportunities, and still relatively affordable. World-class universities like Duke, University of North Carolina, and North Carolina State University, help attract businesses seeking a talented workforce.

But how long before the crucible of housing, or unhousing, ensnares North Carolina as it did California?

North Carolina’s strengths attract expatriates.

North Carolina is among the fastest growing states in the nation, as new arrivals pour in seeking jobs and lower living costs. Since 2010, North Carolina’s population grew by 9.7%, compared to the overall U. S. population growth of 7.4%.

New arrivals need housing, like everybody else. In North Carolina, growth in new housing production since 2010 has been around 8.8%. The 0.9% shortfall, predictably, has caused housings costs to rise. Since 2010, home prices have increased by 31.5%, and rents by 14.6%.

Some benefit, some don’t

Such significant increases in home prices provide benefits to current property owners and landlords. Meanwhile, house hunters are thrown out of housing markets and renters often out of rented homes. Eventually, disadvantages of increasing housing costs overwhelm the middle class. Then, we see the rise of “U cities” that become home for the rich and the very poor. Anyone in the middle who can afford to do so, departs.

In California, the economically-comfortable class easily outbids the lower-income middle class, gentrifies older communities, and pushes residents out of neighborhoods. Some residents slide into homelessness, some into dependency on subsidies, and many are trapped into immobility by rent control (move, and your rent might shoot up 100%).

So, just build?

Just build more housing, one might say. That is not at all an easy feat. In North Carolina, as in many other states, planners and policy makers face a litany of challenges in their quest to reach the holy grail of “equitable, affordable housing.” Here are some of these challenges:

Societal challenges like differing needs and often unwarranted fears make housing development difficult. Current homeowners, used to their tree-lined single-family neighborhoods, do not want changes in zoning that allow for density. But priced-out house hunters would welcome any hope of density creating affordability. Residents of affluent and peaceful neighborhoods fear intrusion by the working poor dreaming of safety and good schools for their kids.

Political challenges also impede housing construction. Leaders desire economic growth; therefore, they focus on welcoming new business, job creation, and population growth. But they thread lightly when it comes to developing homes for new workers, since their more established and economically comfortable constituents resent incursions into their neighborhoods.

Self-determination challenges are not often brought up in housing discussions. North Carolina, unlike California, has not yet felt the brunt of state and regional housing mandates. Chances are it will, if cities and counties do not find satisfactory ways to provide enough construction to house the state’s growing population.

We say, “Sorry we are full?”

Even if local leaders are willing to let old neighborhoods be, there are higher powers that might want to prevent that course of action.

North Carolina is governed by the Dillon Rule, with limited Home Rule. In Dillon Rule states, cities derive their power from what the state chooses to grant. That includes how much decision-making in housing development the state grants its cities.

Also, states must abide by The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962. Included in that Act is the creation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs). Under the Act, all urbanized areas with 50,000 or more in population must join an MPO. North Carolina has 19 MPOs scattered around several regions of the state.

The original intent of MPOs was to coordinate transportation funding between regions. Today, the functions of MPOs include housing development. Recently, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-58 11/15/2021) further codified housing as a purview of MPO’s. The Act makes several changes to include housing considerations in the metropolitan transportation planning process, including:

“Within a metropolitan planning area that serves a transportation management area, permitting the transportation planning process to address the integration of housing, transportation, and economic development strategies through a process that provides for effective integration, including by developing a housing coordination plan. [§ 11201(d)(5); 23 U.S.C. 134(k)].”

MPOs in California serve as cautionary tales. The San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), for example, is a behemoth agency with significant powers over housing development. The challenge for residents and voters is that MTC’s decision-making Commissioners are not elected to their MTC positions by the residents who they supposedly serve. No matter how harebrained their plans are, there is no way to kick them out of their positions.

North Carolina’s MPOs have not come close to exhibiting the power of MPOs in large California regions. Therefore, residents have not yet felt the impact of major housing mandates.

Growth is here and cannot be ignored

There is no denying that North Carolina is going through a population explosion. Legislators and other leaders are happy with the arrival of new job-creating companies. They are also happy with the influx of new residents that will help increase the state’s representation in the U.S. Congress. Their glee could be relatively short lived if they do not handle growth well. Growth involves numerous variables and cannot be solved by merely trying to match supply to demand.

Newcomers need realistically priced homes, so does a well-functioning market – nobody wants a way overvalued housing market that will surely correct with a plunge. Established residents love their single-family homes in tree-filled neighborhoods. Housing developers can be persuasive in calling for changes in zoning and building standards. When zoning changes, there will be homeowners that will sell their homes to developers at very good prices.

Once, California was a beautiful state. It was a destination state, just like North Carolina is today. Now, folks cannot leave the state fast enough, as they escape high taxes, astronomical housing costs, uncontrolled homelessness, and unsanitary cities. What happened?!

Some will say the rich refused to pay their fair share of taxes, so programs could not thrive. Others will say housing costs rose so much that people became homeless (and drug addicts as well). Others will say voters willingly chose ill-conceived proposals.

The latter is closer to the truth. And many of the ill-conceived ideas related to housing. Mandated affordable-housing allocations resulted in gentrification and no affordable housing. Piles of money allocated to housing non-profit organizations resulted in a thriving homeless industrial complex. Destruction of old neighborhoods to make room for development contributed to the rise of a serious missing middle.

Had voters and leaders handled growth by consensus of all residents, not just consensus of the elite and the government-dependent (those that enrich the bureaucracy), things would have worked out better. California has huge areas of protected open space where no housing development is allowed. Open space is great, but it remains pristine at the expense of destruction of established neighborhoods. Once there is enough destruction, people start voting with their feet.

Forewarned is forearmed. North Carolina can prosper while retaining its quality of life by handling population and housing growth wisely.

Democracy is at risk from climate experts

The recent UN conference on climate change was a reminder: We the people do not chose the delegates we send to UN conferences, we do not choose the issues the conferences discuss, we do not have any say on what our delegates commit us to do. Therein lies the threat to Democracy.

Three weeks ago, President Joe Biden declared that “in our bones we know democracy is at risk.” He attributed the threat to Trump acolytes “running for every level of office in America.” Well, no mayhem ensued after November 8.

However, a bigger threat that probably few heard of did arise soon after. On November 6, 2022, the world’s elite once again gathered at the 27th annual United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP27). This time, the conference’s focus was on methods by which the 197 participating countries, including the U.S., should implement the ambitious UN-prescribed climate action plan.

And therein lies the threat to U.S. democracy.

Delegates to the COP27 gathering implicitly agreed to accept the prescribed science behind the climate action plan, identify and remove barriers to implementation of the plan, require changes in corporate behavior to advance the plan, and compel changes in investment to finance the plan. Specific examples were given during the conference:

* Climate science is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prescribes based on its research.

* Barriers to implementation of the climate action plan include oil and gas industry lobbying, dominant modes of transportation, and counties without sufficient capital.

* Corporate behavior in need of change include compensation based on production rather than climate action, lack of specific means of accountability for lack of climate action, resistance to a universal repository for listing specific corporate advances in climate action, and the mere existence of fossil fuel industries.

* Investment needs to move away from fossil fuels and into renewable energy. Developed nations need to pay into a fund designed to assist climate action by less developed nations. Financial institutions need to reduce barriers to financing climate action, such as interest rates or development plan characteristics.

Most of the action points above cannot be binding but are implicitly accepted by delegates. The more explicit point is the establishment of a fund to help poorer nations deal with the costs of climate-induced disasters. At COP27, there was agreement to establish the UN Loss and Damage Fund, details of which will be worked out next year.

Why is this seemingly intelligent climate action plan a threat to U.S. democracy?

The COP27, regardless of any sincere and worthy intentions of participants, is nevertheless a body not chosen by or even widely known to U.S. voters. The bedrock of democracy is the vote of the people. Through their vote on candidates and issues, voters express what they want their country to be.

Since the birth of the United Nations, concerned individuals have expressed uneasiness. We the people do not chose the delegates we send to UN conferences, we do not choose the issues the conferences discuss, we do not have any say on what our delegates commit us to do. We can vote on proposals on our ballots but may or may not readily associate them with UN pledges.

Concern in some circles extend even deeper.

A threat to our political structure – call it democracy or representative republic – for the sake of saving us from climate disaster is bad enough. However, a threat disguised as climate action for the sake of ideology is worse.

Here are a couple of interesting excerpts from recent publications:

* The Lew Rockwell blog on November 2, 2022, published a piece by Thomas DiLorenzo that well encapsulates some people’s concern about the relentless talk of climate action. DiLorenzo says,

Years ago my friend the late Murray Weidenbaum, the chairman of President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisors, told a story of how he had a conversation with Barry Commoner, one of the founding fathers of the modern enviro-commie movement. (I believe they both taught at Washington University in St. Louis). Weidenbaum said to him (paraphrasing from memory): You guys are against oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. Without energy, you cannot have a capitalist market economy.

Commoner’s response was to sit back and smile. Weidenbaum told me that he interpreted Commoner’s expression as saying “exactly right.“

* Greta Thunberg, the high-profile teen climate activist, attended a Southbank Center event to promote her new collection of essays, The Climate Book. During her speech and subsequent interview with journalist Samira Ahmed, Ms. Thunberg stated that it is too late for individual action, and saving the planet now requires system-wide transformation.

We need to change everything because right now our current system is on a collision course with the future of humanity and the future of our civilization.

[the current system is] “defined by colonialism, imperialism, oppression and genocide by the so-called global North to accumulate wealth that still shapes our current world order.

As an aside it is useful to note that Greta Thunberg is aware that changes are unlikely without people’s (supposedly including voters’) demand for such changes. She made that point several times during her interview with Samira Ahmed. Whether COP27 participants were equally cognizant, is not clear.

Additional concerns regarding ideology include a perception of bias.

Bias is an unavoidable feature of the human mind. Sometimes it is unintentional and unperceived, and at times it is intentionally baked into ideologies.

Right-leaning ideologues tend to dismiss the negative impacts of carbon dioxide and/or ignore the association between the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the rise of industrialization. Left-leaning ideologues tend to blame climate change for events that could be ascribed to other causes (residential encroachment into fire zones during the last decade as contributors to forest fires, for example), and tend to limit themselves to prescribed remedies.

At present, left-leaning ideologies have the upper hand on matters of climate change.

Left-leaning bias focuses on elimination of fossil fuels. But the plan lacks sufficient focus on the thousands of products derived from fossil fuels. Lots of talk there is about wind turbines, solar panels, and electric vehicles; but not much talk about effectively replacing polyester clothing, PVC pipes, nylon ropes, plastic toys, or small appliance casings.

Also, left-leaning bias ignores the harm derived from disposal of the large energy-storage batteries required in renewable energies and electric vehicles. It is hard to tell percentage of components that are recycled, although some say 5%. The rest is buried and left to sip into soil and waterways.

Left-leaning bias against capitalism and its profit motive fails to acknowledge that government cannot produce capital. People (including those that work or invest in corporations) produce capital from the profits they make. Focusing on climate action instead of profits will reduce capital. That is fine, as long as we all agree that climate action is more important than the standard of living to which some of us have grown accustomed.

Faced with the conundrums listed above, do we simply do nothing?

Doing nothing about the documented acceleration in the level of global warming since the start of the industrial revolution is not a wise choice. However, neither is risking democracy – which we keep claiming is so important to us – for a promise of safety from anticipated climate disasters.

That is not to say that people who are willing to exchange democracy for a promise of safety should be prevented from seeking that option. They must be free to do so if democracy is to be upheld!

Those who prefer democracy need to be free to choose that preference as well, which is not something by which climate activists like Greta Thunberg abide, or which our “official” climate experts want to allow. And, by the way, who are these official experts?

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988 to provide policymakers with regular scientific risk assessment on climate change, formulate options for adaptation and mitigation, and determine the state of knowledge on climate change. In other words, the IPCC is the poo-bah of climate science. Suggest other scientific avenues, and risk accusation of spreading misinformation.

But there should be competition with the IPCC

Elon Musk, who seems to be rapidly catching up with former president Donald Trump as the Left’s most prominent thorn, on February of 2021 funded through his foundation a four-year global competition to award innovators that demonstrate ways to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or oceans and sequester it durably and sustainably. The idea is not only to fund work on carbon sequestration, but also to incite other investors.

It took NASA only 10 years to figure how to put a man on the Moon and safely bring him back to Earth. It has been 57 years since the first climate conference in 1979 (Geneva, February 12-23, 1979), and according to COP27 participants, global warming is still taking place, disasters are increasing, and not much has been put in place to reverse the trend.

COP27 participants and experts are correct in their assertion it is time for structural changes. However, given the UN’s 57-year failure to bend the curve of global warming, perhaps such changes could include giving up on the UN and focusing more on hyping the work NASA has done on carbon conversion and sequestration, and the awards EPA has established for credible sustainable methods of reducing and sequestering carbon.

If U.S. voters wish to help poor regions with mitigation of disasters due to climate change, voters can choose candidates that promise to do so. Primary focus, however, should be on developing cost-effective technology that nations poorer or richer can use if they choose to do so to curb emissions and sequester carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere.

Pictured: YouTube excerpt of COP27 Recommendations of Expert Group on Net-Zero Commitments of Non-state Entities. Non-state entities include private businesses, agencies and financial institutions. The panel of experts recommended guidelines for explicit, required, equitable and just actions. It also recommended transparency via a central repository where progress could be viewed and evaluated.

CA AB 257 vs Fast Food Industry

A more sustainable way to guarantee good wages and benefits is to encourage workers to obtain marketable skills, rather than engage in a never-ending battle with the realities of the market.

The California Legislature passed Assembly Bill 257, the Fast Food Accountability and Standards Recovery Act, on August 29, 2022. If Governor Gavin Newsom approves AB 257, California will be the first state in the nation to broadly regulate wages and working conditions for an entire industry. Fight for $15 and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California sponsored AB 257. Their hope is the bill will lead to European-style industry-wide unionization, and end company-by-company efforts. The fast-food industry predictably opposes the bill.

Although states, as well as the federal government, regulate several industries, like banking and petroleum, these regulations do not set minimum wage and labor standards. They do not attempt to regulate social inequities. That is why the bill is being touted by the media as “first in the nation.”

A Super Agency in the Making

AB 257 creates a council comprised of government officials appointed by the Governor, business leaders, and worker representatives. The council will draw regulation to apply to all fast food restaurants with 100 or more establishments nationally that share a common brand. The bill has broad powers to repeal or amend existing regulation to accomplish its mission of establishing wage and labor standards.

AB 257 claims its intent is not to usurp legislative powers by creating or amending statutes. However, sections of the bill seem to send a contradictory message.

Section 4 (d) (1) (B) Nothing herein restrains the Legislature from enacting legislation that prevents a standard, repeal, or amendment from taking effect.

This wording seems to say elected representatives of the people do not have the power to simply veto regulations presented by the council, but instead can if they choose create legislation that would amend or repeal the regulation.

The council created by AB 257 seems in reality to be a super-agency, whose unelected members have de facto power to make and enforce law. As such, voters have no say in rules and regulations this super-agency implements. The only recourse of unhappy voters is appeal to their California legislators to try to enact more legislation that modifies or repeals the “law” created by the council – a council they themselves created.

The council will succeed where no agency has before?

California already has numerous laws, rules and regulations regarding wages and working conditions. However, AB 257 correctly states that enforcement is ineffective and problems in the workplace abound.

Section 2 (j) Furthermore, because existing enforcement and regulatory mechanisms have proved inadequate in ensuring fast food restaurant worker health, safety, and welfare, the Legislature concludes that sectorwide minimum health, safety, and employment standards, including standards concerning wages and other working conditions, identified by an expert body with subject matter expertise and experience in the fast food sector and which can represent the demographic diversity of the state’s fast food restaurant operators and employees, are necessary to protect, maintain, and ensure the health, safety, and welfare of, and to supply the necessary cost of proper living to, fast food restaurant employees.

So, AB 257 creates a super-agency (without discontinuing any of the ineffective agencies) and claims it will do the job none of the other numerous agencies have succeeded in doing. Seems this endeavor could only be accomplished either by amazing efficiency, for which government agencies are not well known, or tyrannical power over the fast food industry, approaching a takeover.

Interesting background of AB 257

AB 257 was originally authored by then Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, who resigned from office in January 2022 to take the position of chief officer of the California Labor Federation. Ms. Gonzalez is also the author of Assembly Bill 5, signed into law September 2019, which reclassified numerous California workers from independent contractors to employees.

AB 5 caused enormous upheaval, like upending supply chains by curbing the work of hundreds of independent truckers. AB 5 has also spawned numerous high-profile lawsuits, the most prominent of which are those initiated by ride-sharing company Uber, the California Trucking Association, and the International Franchise Association.

It would not be unreasonable to expect the same upheaval from AB 257, given the bill’s unusually broad powers.

After Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez’s resignation from office, Assemblymember Chris Holden reintroduced the bill in January 2022.

There is a better way

Government micromanagement of industries, promising “living wages” and a plethora of “benefits” might seem to low-wage workers like a dream come true.

Unfortunately, they do not realize that life will find a way. The marketplace is a living thing that survives the harshest conditions – ask any underground entrepreneur thriving in the world’s tyrannies. Another quote is “money goes to where it is treated best.” Ask the many major companies that have left California for more business-friendly states. The cure promised by AB 257 might be worse than the ailments.

Another way to view low-wage workers, like those in the fast food industry, is that there are too many of them. Although sometimes denied by today’s progressives, supply and demand do determine prices. If companies see too many people with non-marketable skills (like graduates of California’s low-rated school system or graduates from Stanford with degrees in philosophy) then companies can pay their workers low wages without fear of exhausting the worker supply.

A more sustainable way to guarantee worker respect, good wages, and benefits is to encourage workers to obtain marketable skills. Never-ending battles with the realities of the market only serve to grow government power, increase taxation necessary to maintain bureaucracies, and divert resources from helping the populace obtain good skills.