STATE: State Park Investigation Proves Fraud

*******************

UPDATE: 8/20/2012. Today's Tribune has a front page article updating the story of how our Calif. State Parks had millions hidden in secret funds, while trying to fool us into raising taxes to keep our State Parks open. A recent investigation involving more than 30 interviews found that:

1) Our State Parks Dept. routinely searched in June every year for ways to spend money to keep from losing it; all the while, park closures threatened, and maintenance on the 278 state parks was not done;

2) Parks Administrator Manuel Lopez illegally tapped the park funds to pay for cash buyouts for himself and dozens of other park employees (Lopez subsequently resigned or was fired) to the tune of $271,000;

3) The Parks Employees created a variety of forged documents, including those showing they had entered into contracts to spend money on computers and such, when no such agreements existed;

4) "Burning Down" budgets in June each year (i.e., spending just to get rid of money in the budget) is widespread THROUGHOUT Calif. state government departments, NOT JUST parks (hope nobody is surprised by this);

5) Parks Director Ruth Coleman resigned in July, claiming she didn't know of this Parks Slush Fund, though investigation testimony revealed that she did indeed know.

Here's what I think:

1) Gov. Brown must have known about this, yet continued on his crusade to use Calif. Park Closings to convince Californian's to vote this November to raise taxes;

2) I'm betting that Coleman and Lopez were able to resign and retain their full retirement benefits, when they should have been fired for their fraudulent role in this whole situation;
3) California voters voted for a democrat controlled legislature, a democratic governor, and spending that is out of control - well, we got what we wanted. Still want to give these buffoons more of your money through Calif. tax increases? November is coming...

Get more updates on the story in the Los Angeles Times or the Sacramento Bee.

*******************

UPDATE: 8/2/2012. Source: The Tribune, SanLuisObispo.com. It was reported that California Parks Department deliberately underreported $53.8 million in 2 accounts. State finance officials were alerted to this error fifteen (15!!!) years ago, as far back as 1997, said Jacob Roper, a spokesman for the State Controller's Office. This raises questions about basic state government account policies and procedures, or lack thereof. The $53.8 million surplus dates back at least 12 years, even though the state was threatening to shut down 70 state parks due to budget constraints. State Parks Director Ruth Coleman stepped down (I assume that means she QUIT), and her Deputy Chief, Michael Harris was let go (I assume that means FIRED). Director Coleman claims she was unaware of the secret hidden fund, thus leaving us to wonder why she quit?

To the many folks who stepped into the void with their own private money and effort to keep our beloved State Parks open, this is both a huge slap in the face, and a reason to not trust what our beloved State Government tell us. Things like this are really discouraging to folks who care about things like this. Our local SLO economy relies heavily on our state parks attracting tourists to our hotels and restaurants. SLO County has numerous state parks, though I could not put my finger on the number.

********************

UPDATE 7/30/2012: Who knows what to believe. Apparently, it is not clear whether the $54,000,000 even exists or not [Update 8/2/2012 - apparently the money DOES exist]. Due to lax accounting standards, the $54 mil may just be accounting errors. It has been show repeatedly that the government, in all its forms and at all its levels, cannot pass a standard accounting audit. They are not subject to audits, nor the discipline and scrutiny that goes with it. Sigh. California has a few billion in these "slush" funds, but doesn't really know how much. In the upcoming weeks, they hope to account for some of this money and then move on once it is out of the news. A few billion here, a few billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about a lot of money.

********************

ORIGINAL POST July 24, 2012: Again, another area where I am loath to dive in, but I must. From the beginning, Calif. Gov. Brown's threat to close 70 state parks that cost the state $22,000,000 per year unless we vote to increase taxes stunk up our state. Knowing that these 70 state parks generate far more than $22 mil in local and state tax revenues, I've been smelling a rat with this one for a long time. I will not be manipulated into voting for a tax increase - I hope you won't, either.

Then comes the lovely headline today on July 24, 2012 that the State Park Fund had $54,000,000 in unused but SECRET funds at their disposal. In the previous year, non-profit groups in Calif. have been scrambling to build organizations and donations to take over these 70 parks so they don't close. Heads have already rolled, with longtime State Park Director Ruth Coleman resigning, and Chief Deputy Michael Harris resigning. Though my view has been one of tricking the state voters into raising taxes, Nick Franco, superintendant of the San Luis Obispo Coast District of State Parks somehow sees it as an effort to energize non-profits into accepting the idea of privatizing the parks. Given our state liberal bent, privatizing ANYTHING, much less a state park, would seem to be the furthest from our state legislators minds. I will keep my eyes and ears open for ANY evidence that what Mr. Franco suspects holds any water. See the July 24, 2012 Tribune Article "Local Parks Supporters Feel Betrayed by Money Scandal". Silicon Valley Mercury News also had this to say about the issue.

There is some noise about the Sacramento Bee (who broke the story) has gotten it wrong, and that the $54,000,000, while State Park funds, cannot be used to keep them open. If that's so, then why have heads rolled?

NATIONAL: You Didn't Build Your Business & Earning Your Success

********************
UPDATE August 6, 2012: Obama is actually quite good at stirring the conservative pot. First he allows waivers to the requirement for state welfare recipients to "work", then he tells those of us who are working that no matter how hard we work, we didn't build our own business - the government did.

The WSJ article Obama and Earning Your Success, is quite the follow-up to "you didn't build your business". On July 25, 2012, in New Orleans, Obama (on the campaign trail), asserted that "America says we will give you opportunity, but you've got to earn your success."  Unknown to me at the time, on July 12, 2012, Obama ordered that the Department of Health and Human Services will issue waivers to federal work requirements for welfare recipients. This requirement was put in place during the Clinton Administration in 1996, and is credited with a decline in overall federal welfare by 54% between 1996 and 2004. The 1996 Clinton law required states to have at least half of all adult welfare recipients to be in qualified work activities, such as actual jobs, education or training programs. Its certainly now safe to say that if you're receiving welfare, you probably didn't earn that. Another take on this same subject comes from the National Public Radio website.

This has been Obama's mode of operation lately. Give up on getting anything through Congress, and just order your subordinates to ignore the law of the land and do what Obama says instead. Its not clear that Clinton's 1996 Welfare Law allows for waivers at the discretion of the President or the Department of Health and Human Services, yet that is the order that was given by our President.

********************
Here’s President Obama's full passage from July 13, 2012:

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

     So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

The green text underlined above is what everyone is quoting. The full context of the President's quote does not change the meaning of the green underlined text above. However, as I am wont to do, I have a different interpretation of the President's statement. When primarily white Europeans first came to the New World, they were either capitalists or they died (as many of them did). Later, when civilization eventually came along and taxed the capitalists, they used the taxes to build things for the common good of every citizen. The capitalists/workers provided the capital (i.e., money through taxes) to the government to build BETTER roads and bridges, as they do today. Remember that BEFORE the government built roads and bridges, the capitalists had already built them - what? you thought that before government nobody had seen a bridge or a road, and that the government had to invent it? So the capitalists built the roads and bridges by paying the government taxes to have them built. When the President says that "Somebody else made that happen", that somebody else would be our business owners and workers who made that happen - through paying the taxes to make it happen. Without taxes, it would never have happened. Which is easier to do: earn money (capitalists) or spend someone elses money collected through taxes (the government). So the business owner (the capitalists) had the hard job, while the government had the easy one. I would tell the president that private enterprise (capitalism) is what pays the taxes to make the government.

Let's look at the obvious truisms along with the inaccuracies that the President declared above:

1) If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. If you were a failure, somebody along the line gave you some help. This statement is always true. Duh.

2) There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Depends on how you define great. If you define great, like Michael Jordan or George Washington, then probably not. That's how I define great. This slobbery hero worship of public school teachers has got to end. There are good ones and bad ones, but we get to have both, since bad ones cannot be let go. We all know who the good ones are (if you are a parent), but all public school teachers get paid the same (if they have the same seniority). I'd rather pay the good ones more, and let the bad ones go on to do something they are better at doing. Looking back, its hard for me to recall having any great teachers. One does come to mind. At El Segundo High School in California, I had a Spanish teach named Mr. Real. Everyone agrees he was one of the best teachers ever. However, I SUCKED at Spanish, and got my 2 years in, as required for attending a University of Calif. School. However, no matter how great an instructor, I hated Spanish cuz' I sucked at it. So yes, I had a great teacher in my life, but it didn't inspire me to learn or improve at Spanish. My "great" teacher didn't inspire me to greatness, unfortunately.

3) Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. Not somebody, Mr. President. Taxpayers funded the American system of roads and bridges, from capitalist private enterprises (the same ones that you seem to despise, or at least see as a necessary evil). A private company built the Golden Gate Bridge, when the government couldn't get it done (the project was rescued by Bank of America, who bought virtually all of the bonds used to fund the building of the bridge - just read the link and educate yourself).

4) If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.  Wow. We have a business. We went to college, while working almost full time. Then we went to grad school. We studied and worked hard to build our careers. Then we worked for somebody else. Then we started our own business, which was (and continues to be) hard work. Mr. President tells me that we didn't build our business, but somebody else did it for us? Who was that somebody, President Obama? I'm waiting for an answer that will never come.

5) The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. Mr. Prez., please stop spreading the rumors that the U. S. government invented the internet. Okay, so who did invent the Internet? The lion's share of the credit should go to Xerox, as argued in this WSJ article. Also, my company does NOT make money off of the internet, even though the President says that ALL COMPANIES make money off the internet. I'm mad at myself for not making money off the internet, like apparently all other companies are doing except mine. UPDATE 8/14/2012: Apparently, the consensus is that Xerox technically DID NOT create the internet, but merely Ethernet, which is the primary communication method for distributing information off the internet to local internets. Sorry for not doing better research - I'll be better next time.

6) The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. Which is it? Do we succeed because of individual initiative, or because we do things together? I vote for individual initiative. When we started our company in 1998, I didn't see anybody doing this together with us - it was just my wife and I against the world. Nobody was going to help us - certainly not our competitors. It was all on our shoulders. I didn't notice a government worker there to help us - in fact, just the opposite. Most of the roadblocks we found to constructing our business were put up by that government that was just "here to help".

7) There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires. Ridiculous statement on its face. Similar to suggesting that we play a game of the President's beloved basketball with 10 teams of 1 instead of 2 teams of 5. No, we're not morons, Mr. President. I doubt anybody out there thought that we should fight fires as individuals, instead of with a taxpayer (capitalist) funded fire department.

8) So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. Duh. Another statement that is always true. Yes, there are some things (indeed, many things) that we do better together. Like playing ping pong. Hard to play without someone else. Your point? Also, the President speaks of the middle class like it was an invention, but the middle class emerged from certain economic convergence of ideas and opportunities.

9) We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together. Another statement that is always true. We occupy the same spaceship planet Earth. However, though Reagan (and certainly others) did say that a rising tide raises all ships. However, some ships rise higher than others, and those with holes in them do sink. I do not agree that we rise or fall together in lockstep. More accurately, we are each our own ship, moving up or down as we will, and the health of our fleet of ships depends upon how all the ships, on average, are doing.

Yes, we get what the Prez was trying to say: nobody can succeed in a vacuum. However, I do not agree that is a true statement either. When the '49ers came out west for the Gold Rush, did the government build roads for the prairie schooners to cross? No. Private citizens banded together to make their own way across the wilderness. Did the government build the sailing ships to take the '49ers around Cape Horn and safely to San Francisco harbor? No. Were there roads, buildings, schools, stores, and roads in California in 1848? No. Did the government step in during the Gold Rush and build roads, stores and schools? Nope again. The hardy pioneers built it all without a single tax on gold being paid. They did it because they were self-sufficient and knew how to survive in the wilderness - indeed, even thrive in a wild California land without any infrastructure.

However, people do stand on the backs of others when it comes to inventions and achievements. It is said that every new invention only has 2% new ideas, with the other 98% already having been invented. But that's NOT what Obama is trying to say. Reading between the lines, the point of his ongoing "You Didn't Build That" commentary is that he is disparaging business as a necessary evil that must be tolerated as the engine that funds taxes so that he can spend those taxes to turn the evil of business into the good of government.

My prediction is that the President gets re-elected, and if he does, we all deserve what we get from him. If you are expecting more of the same, then your expectations will be met.