My View: The California Air resources Board is quickly becoming the most dangerous bureaucratic organization in California. This latest contempt for a public that questions the validity of their mission is way over the top. As the headline says, CARB is actively considering:
…a proposed regulation which would prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board or to its staff.
Guess who gets to determine the “dishonesty” of a “statement or submittal” to CARB?
Of course, it’s OK if CARB makes a 340% error of their own while using false data to impose their will on the people of California. And of course it’s OK to publicly flaunt the ugly hubris of the CARB boss Mary Nichols rubbing her glee in the face of the citizens of California that voted for Prop 23. And of course it’s OK to simply demote a CARB “scientist” who lied about his PhD degree obtained from a UPS store rather than fire his fraudulent bureaucratic butt and then stage a cover up about it. But, when a citizen submits some data or opinion to CARB that they may later find questionable? Well, that’s a whole different matter.
What a bunch of self serving, holier than thou, public sector putzes!
Evidently CARB is contemplating a regulation that would enable penalties for what would be judged “dishonest statements or submittals” provided to it or “staff.” I think one can safely assume that it is aimed at curtailing challenges to CARB’s agenda that are based on alternative scientific information and interpretations.
Here’s a message from their listserver, you just have to read this to believe it:
—–Original Message—–
From: owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov
[mailto:owner-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov] On Behalf Of wfell@arb.ca.gov
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:31 PM
To: post-arbcombo@listserv.arb.ca.gov
Subject: arbcombo — Air Resources Board Workshop to Discuss Proposed Regulation Relating to False Statements Made to ARB or its Staff
ARB staff invites you to participate in a workshop on December 1, 2010 to discuss a proposed regulation which would prohibit dishonest statements or submittals offered to the Board or to its staff.
The workshop will provide the public with a chance to discuss the proposed regulation and to provide initial comment and feedback
We welcome your participation in this event.
For further information, please view the web page at http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/falsestatements/falsestatements.htm
which contains regularly updated information.
======================================================================
You are subscribed to one of the lists aggregated to make this particular ARB combination listserve broadcast. To UNSUBSCRIBE:
Please go to http://www.arb.ca.gov/listserv/listserv.php and enter your email address and click on the button “Display Email Lists.”
To unsubscribe, please click inside the appropriate box to uncheck it and go to the bottom of the screen to submit your request. You will receive an automatic email message confirming that you have successfully unsubscribed. Also, please read our listserve disclaimer at http://www.arb.ca.gov/listserv/disclaim.htm .
The energy challenge facing California is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, visit the Flex Your Power website at www.fypower.org ..
======================================================================
My source for this email (who shall remain nameless) writes:
An attorney-member of our network, (Roger E. Sowell), who is knowledgeable in environmental law and possesses a strong technical background, had the following initial reaction:
There is a Federal law at 18 USC 1001, that provides for a fine and up to 5 years imprisonment for knowingly and willfully providing false information of a material fact, among several other things, to any part of the Federal government. (I’m paraphrasing here). see e.g. http://vlex.com/vid/sec-statements-entries-generally-19190798
As just a sample of the issues, the key words are:
“Knowingly”
“Willfully”
“False”
“Material”
Each of those words has a specific meaning, usually hammered out in court cases. CARB cannot just arbitrarily choose definitions of such words, to suit their purpose. They must comply with the law and legal precedents. Where this gets very, very interesting is in the definition of “false.” We are dealing with scientific information, and science is fairly fuzzy. There are uncertainties in data measurements, to name merely one of several problem areas, as well as experimental design errors, choice of data analysis methods, interpretation of results, etc.
There are almost always factions of scientists that can be found to support almost any view – although a few viewpoints are appropriately discredited as crackpot. The fact is that new data is discovered or developed; new and better explanations for old data are developed; old theories discarded and new theories put forward, showing that science is not settled and that the definition of “false” is slippery when applied to a statement related to science.
There are other problems with a criminal falsity statute, such as applicability to various situations, and exemptions, also conformity with the Constitution and various standards embodied there. In addition, there are fraud claims that can arise if funding for scientific research led to false statements based upon the research findings.
Also, this could easily be turned around on CARB, by asserting that the “science” they relied on in many of their regulations was false information, knowingly and willfully presented.
I’m wondering who decides whether or not something is false. Are these going to be regulations that can be fought out in court (if CARB decide to fine someone)? A fair trial could see CARB become more of a mockery than it already is.
RichieP
You’re quite right: Bad day !
$8.63 per imperial gallon, is that $10.36 per US gallon ?
Still a bad day, and late now !
I would not be too sure about there not being a federal bailout. Consider this scenario.
Sometime in the next two years, California falls into a financial crisis. The administration positions the issue as “California is too big to fail” and puts together a financial package, coupled to “reforms” in order to make it politically viable to a disapproving Republican House. Of course the reforms will be meaningless and not likely to be implemented anyway. The media reports the administration’s position in a favorable light, emphasizing the national scope of a failing California economy. Republicans are caught between being held up as responsible for such a broad negative impact on the one hand and acceding to the tea party demands to hold the line on the other.
Oh, and 75% of that is tax !
With another tax added (VAT) that is calculated on the fuel PRICE, plus the fuel TAX.
So we pay tax on a tax !
Adolf Balik
I usually use an expression “Carbonari” to denominate believers in the artificial “carbon scare”.
I dunno, Adolf. I’d suggest “Carbophobes,” “carbophobic.” Same root, though….
I don’t believe that will happen. The card that will be played is “the citizens of the other 49 states are taxed enough without having to be forced to subsidize the California legislature’s inability to live within its means”.
In other words, the citizens of every other state will, in effect, pay California state taxes in addition to their own state and federal tax. It isn’t going to happen. There is no way the taxpayers of Texas or Florida or even New York will agree to bailing out the California legislature.
crosspatch says:
November 21, 2010 at 5:42 pm “I don’t believe that will happen.”
I hope you are right. But a lot of favors are owed to the political class in California, and there is already a backdoor bailout in progress via the Build America Bonds gig; see
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704648604575621062239887650.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Ha, ha, ha, ha. Sorry Anthony, but it’s rather fun to watch Caleeeeforinication screw itself, thereby showing the rest of the USA what will happen to us if we continue to believe in “hope and change and socialism.”
I will fight hard to keep the more saner part of the USA from bailing the morons of CA out!!
I don’t weather to laugh or fear.
What gets me is how crafty the people of California are in their stupidity.
Jerry Brown is an idiot, who will be a prime target for a recall referendum when things inevitably get worse. Knowing that, they had the foresight to elect Gavin Newsom as lieutenant governor.
Now, no matter how bad things get, nobody in their right mind will try to recall Brown because Newsom is so much farther out there in looney tunes land.
This was a stroke of sheer genius!
Guess who gets to determine the “dishonesty” of a “statement or submittal” to CARB?
Chicken Little?
Dear Dave Springer & crosspatch
I don’t really want to encourage a side discussion on removing Supreme Court Justices; but, that said you proposed solution is a bit over the top.
Under current law, justice(s) can be removed by Congressional impeachment and conviction. Historically only one justice was impeached by the House (Samuel Chase in 1805). Chase was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan Federalist leanings affect his court decisions. He was acquitted by the Senate.
Hence, Congress can remove any Supreme Court which is perceived to vary radically from the will of the nation. Or as President Jackson did, simply ignore the court altogether see Worcester vs. Georgia (1832). (Jackson ejected my mother’s half of the family, members of the Cherokee Nation, out of Tennessee to Oklahoma, via the trail of tears. Most of the family escaped; but, that’s another story).
Anyway, a much simpler approach to EPA vs Massachusetts is to simply have Congress clarify that the Clean Air Act shall not be used to regulated greenhouse gases .
Regards, Kforestcat
mike g says on November 21, 2010 at 6:12 pm
Hmmm, that does not make sense. In the last recall election, I am sure you remember it, Bustemante did not get to be governor. Arnold did.
Richard Sharpe:
Thanx. Mike had me scared there for a minute.
@sharpe
Cruz Boostthemoney ran a strong second. I doubt Arnold will participate in the next one.
Franky, I’d like to see this:
turned around so we have an additional law along those exact same lines making it similarly illegal for the President or any of his appointees or direct representatives (Gibbs, etc), or any members of congress and their direct spokespersons, or any candidate for public office, to knowingly provide false information to USA citizens. With, of course, an exception for wartime ‘disinformation’ or other information thought to be necessary for national security. To that end, they could have the same federal courts that handle national security issues handle any issues of lies claimed necessary for nat’l security purposes, so it can be safely determined if nat’l security really was an issue in those cases.
I have not read this all yet–I assume that burning at the stake (or maybe stoning) is the punishment.
[One must first pass the dunk test: If a skeptic doesn’t drown, she must be a witch and can be burned at the stake. Stoning is for crimes against fidelity, and can only be assigned those who tell the truth. 8<) Robt]
“Dear Dave Springer & crosspatch”
I never commented on removing Supreme Court justices. I did comment on returning the Senate to its original configuration by modifying the 17th amendment with a new amendment that returns at least one of the Senators from each state to appointment by the legislature to give the state governments back their check on the federal government.
As to the proposed CARB regulation – does anyone know for sure if it were implemented, would members of the public then be able to sue a member of CARB if they presented false information to the rest of CARB? Or would a member of the public lack ‘standing’ in court?
The ‘devolution’ of Arnold really has been awfully saddening to see. I thought he showed a lot of promise originally, and now it seems he’s been utterly co-opted by ‘green & AGW’ and at the same time completely unable to untangle some of the legislative nightmare that makes it so difficult for Ca to resolve much of anything. I have no idea if as Gov. its virtually impossible to fix the legislative tangle, or if he just wasn’t able to do so himself.
mike g says on November 21, 2010 at 6:55 pm
I don’t think Arnold should run either, since he has not actually been very effective at dealing with the excesses of this predecessors and their pandering to public sector unions.
Unfortunately Ronald is dead … and the Republicans seem unable to field a worthy candidate.
As to hoping that there won’t be any federal bailout of California or similar states…. unfortunately it sounds as if that is already occurring.
I’m not even referring to stimulus bucks, which we all know aren’t being spread around evenly, and of course are subsidizing unemployment etc., which means states like Ca with higher unemployment because of over-regulation, etc., are getting more federal taxpayer $$’s…
A Wall Street Journal article, State Bailouts? They’ve Already Begun, covers federal bailouts of states that I suspect most folks aren’t aware of (I sure wasn’t):
State Bailouts? They’ve Already Begun
Bond subsidies and transfers have allowed states to avoid making tough decisions. It won’t last.
–snip–…What this panel and so many other investors fail to appreciate is that state bailouts have already begun. Over 20% of California’s debt issuance during 2009 and over 30% of its debt issuance in 2010 to date has been subsidized by the federal government in a program known as Build America Bonds. Under the program, the U.S. Treasury covers 35% of the interest paid by the bonds. Arguably, without this program the interest cost of bonds for some states would have reached prohibitive levels.
California is not alone: Over 30% of Illinois’s debt and over 40% of Nevada’s debt issued since 2009 has also been subsidized with these bonds. These states might have already reached some type of tipping point had the federal program not been in place.
Beyond debt subsidies, general federal government transfers to states now stand at the highest levels on record. Traditionally, state revenues were primarily comprised of sales, personal and corporate income taxes. Over the years, however, federal government transfers have subsidized business-as-usual state spending not covered by state tax collections. Today, more than 28% of state funding comes from federal government transfers, the highest contribution on record.
These transfers have made states dependent on federal assistance. New York, for example, spent in excess of 250% of its tax receipts over the last decade. The largest 15 states by GDP spent on average over 220% of their tax receipts. Clearly, states have been spending at unsustainable levels without facing immediate consequences due to federal transfer payments and other temporary factors.
At the same time, local governments now rely on state government transfers for 33% of their funding. …–snip–
This post a question for Roger Sowell. First, Roger, thank you for your input on this issue! It is always nice to have a professional’s opinion on issues like this. I haven’t finished reading all the comments yet, so I may have missed some… but will wade in with this question anyhow.
My question for you is related to the 1st Amendment – clearly it prohibits Congress from making any laws of this nature – but has that/does that translate down to the state level, e.g., are states similarly prohibited from making such laws? I suppose I’ve always assumed that to be the case either by president or however it has worked legally (and one of your comments implies this is the case), but in thinking about it more directly I wonder if that is actually the case?
re post: Kforestcat says: November 20, 2010 at 10:52 pm
Kforestcat, where and approx. when did these occur please?