As part of its one-state war on global warming, California grants rebates of $2,500 to purchasers of electric vehicles, no matter how wealthy they are, or how much the cars cost. That amounts to a taxpayer subsidy to Tesla Motors, which routinely sells its cars for upward of $100,000, of no less than $34 million so far to 13,600 customers.
Sparsely populated Glenn County’s court payroll this year averages about $120,000 per month, according to county documents. It employs just two judges. It can ill afford cutting an $800,000 check.
California employers would be required to pay their employees double for working on Thanksgiving or Christmas under a bill advancing at the state Capitol. The measure passed its first committee vote Wednesday.
Workers who benefit from Oakland’s minimum wage hike might soon lose a service that enables them to work in the first place. It turns out the well-intentioned law is putting a financial squeeze on Oakland’s child care industry, leading some providers to panic. . . Asked if Lift Up Oakland anticipated problems for the city’s child care sector, spokeswoman Beth Trimarco said the campaign “did not specifically analyze impacts on all industries.”
It’s no surprise, then, that Latinos, who will shape much of America’s future, are overall doing better in Texas than in California. In Texas, they are more likely to be married and own a business or a home than their California counterparts – and far less likely be on some form of public assistance. One explanation has been the relative decline of the California economy, particularly in fields such as construction, manufacturing, energy and logistics, that have been traditional sources of upward mobility for working class, noncollege educated people.
. . . Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, D-Sacramento, introduced Assembly Bill 1434, which would give Jones rate-setting authority over “preferred provider organization” plans offered by Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
The principal author of that legislation, Sen. Fran Pavley, D-Agoura Hills, has introduced a new bill, SB 32, requiring greenhouse gases to be cut to 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050. The plan would come under the jurisdiction of the Air Resources Board.
The California Supreme Court ruled this week that evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment does not, in and of itself, preclude the use of a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The California Chamber of Commerce and large coalition of small businesses, trade associations and local chambers are supporting a bill that promotes using a scientific exposure assessment when deciding whether to warn under Proposition 65.
Lately, we have seen good job growth numbers which has led to a reduction in the unemployment rate. At first glance, this is an encouraging sign for the economy. But when we have a closer look at data on business dynamics, it is clear that the overall economy has not come back to its full strength. Specifically, the economy is still not creating as many new firms as it did before the recession.
“It’s the biggest. The reason it’s so large is that fuels have come under the cap,” said David Clegern, a spokesman for the ARB. Transportation fuels account for about 40 percent of greenhouse gases.
At issue are California’s rigid overtime rules, which require companies to pay hourly employees time-and-one-half not only for time worked in excess of 40 hours a week — but for time worked beyond eight hours each day. As the state’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement declares, “Eight hours of work constitutes a day’s work … .” But what works in the view of a Sacramento bureaucracy isn’t necessarily what works for others.
The other 49 states follow a more lenient federal law that permits some outsourcing as long as “virtually all” of the product is of U.S. origin, according to a Federal Trade Commission advisory.
In 2008, independent economists hired by the California Air Resources Board to review its plans to implement AB 32, the state’s landmark anti-global warming law, warned officials against presenting the measure as a broad boon to the state economy. Forcing California to use a higher percentage of cleaner but costlier fuels by 2020 was likely to hurt industries that competed with states and nations with lower energy costs, especially manufacturers. The most renowned of the economists, Harvard’s Robert Stavins, offered the sharpest critique and warned the air board that it risked discrediting itself if it didn’t acknowledge the law’s downside.
“Instead of cherry-picking job creation in favored industries benefiting wealthy areas, we should be growing jobs in impoverished communities that continue to suffer from disgracefully high unemployment rates,” Vidak said.