State of Jefferson Update

by Jack Lee

Select committee members for the new State met yesterday with local businessmen, including a trucking company owner that is facing the prospect of going out of business if the CARB rules become anymore stringent. The committee heard that CARB is providing cash assistance to large trucking companies to meet the new smog compliance rules while small NorCal trucking companies are told to fend for themselves. CSUC Business Professor Angela Casler was at today’s meeting and she said the government incentives to update engines aren’t available to north-state business because of the guidelines. They have no choice but pay, shut down or leave.

Casler, ran a trucking company for five years and she said the new air emissions regulations actually create pollution. Elements of the approved equipment, such as filters, come from China and Canada because they can’t be made in the U.S. Tony Hobbs of Baker Trucking in Willows recently complained to the ER that emission filter problems have cost thousands of dollars in just down time and extra expenses.

Hobbs owns 30 trucks and employs 25 people. The filters on his trucks seem to give out after only a few thousand miles. In the 98 days the truck had been idled, either from the filter failure or the repair process, cost him more than $8,000. Hobbs was forced to buy eight new trucks in order to comply. He noted the filters make him use more fuel.” Issues like these are causing many business people to look for an alternative to the rules and regulations coming from Sacramento. Their complaints have fallen on deaf ears. So, when the idea of dividing the State into Northern and Southern California came around it grabbed their attention! Local businesses and voters simply want a sober acting government and this is not Sacramento and there’s no reason to expect it to change.

Later on, the committee members spoke to the Butte County Board of Supervisors and expressed their intent to bring a “Split the State” vote before them in the near future. However, right now the group isn’t ready for a vote. They’re more focused on bringing the idea before the voters and building consensus. Among the key points for Statehood were: CA now ranks highest in taxes and among the worst states for education. CA is so business unfriendly that the largest exodus of jobs in our history is taking place. People want a smaller, less intrusive and more efficient state government.” They feel a new State in NorCal can do better. They’re basically looking for less taxation with more representation.

The group said, “What’s wrong with bringing government closer to the people and addressing issues relevant to the North-state? ” As one speaker noted, “CA is already a divided State. We’re divided by un-equal representation, by different types of economies and even by a major change in voter demographics.”

We hope that when the time comes for Supervisors to vote to create a new State our supporters will pack the house, said Michael Wacker of Chico.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to State of Jefferson Update

  1. Libby says:

    Don’t these truckers care about the state of the planet they leave to their progeny?

    Did they think the air quality fairy was going to wave her wand and make it happen?

    The locals will crab. Then they will hustle. Then they will make it work. They resent the “mommy”, “nanny”, tyranical state that’s making them do it, but you know what … tough noogies.

    We will clean up the mess.

    No. This is how it happens. You switch your fleet over to cleaner running engines.

  2. Libby says:

    Ooops. This is how it was supposed to go:

    Don’t these truckers care about the state of the planet they leave to their progeny?

    Did they think the air quality fairy was going to wave her wand and make it happen?

    No. This is how it happens. You switch your fleet over to cleaner running engines.

    The locals will crab. Then they will hustle. Then they will make it work.

    They resent the “mommy”, “nanny”, tyranical state that’s making them do it, but you know what … tough noogies.

    We will clean up the mess.

  3. dbueno says:

    We the people do not want a new state. You have a problem you solve. Selfishness is what I call it.

    They elect Big Business corporate Politicians then blame the state.

    Tea Party will push splitting into 3 states with 6 senators 4 rep and 2 dems to take the senate for the final corporate takeover of the USA.

    The agenda is available to read. The shutdown was all planned. Wake up America tea Party is not a grassroots org it is the Koch brothers

    • Post Scripts says:

      dbueno, I wish you had a more open mind. Just think what a new state called North California (formerly referred to as Jefferson) would mean? It’s a winner on so many levels from freedom to a responsive gov. Unless you actually like the kind of legislation coming from Sacramento and SoCal gang that runs this entire state, then a new State is not for you.

      This is not a liberal v conservative or dem v republican issue. This is an American issue, where taxation and representation are in fair balance. Where jobs could be plentiful instead of being exported out of state. This could be where Greens and businesses can coexist rationally. It is possible dbueno, but only if we leave the crazies and special interest people in SoCal behind. There’s no hope of outvoting them all we can do is seek a division in order to elect a sensible legislature that would treat NorCal fairly. If you don’t see the problem, then I just wasted my time, but I’m hoping you are better than that.

  4. matt says:

    obviously you did not read the article,
    tax breaks for the south while leaving the north to fend for themselves,

    “As Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, explains, the ‘80s ushered in the age of environmental extremism. The basic issues, for which he and Greenpeace fought, had largely been accomplished, and the general public was in agreement with the primary message. In order for the environmentalists to remain employed, they had to adopt ever more extreme positions. Moore says: “What happened is environmental extremism. They’ve abandoned science and logic altogether.” Their message today is “anti:” anti-human, anti-science, anti-technology, anti-trade and globalization, anti-business and capitalism, and ultimately, anti-civilization.”

  5. matt says:

    #3 dbueno i think your on something, corpratisim is often described as the merger of government and business so please explain if you can how you feel people looking to limit government are some how in bed with corporations if anything the opposite is true , those continuing to expand the government are the enablers of corporatism

  6. Libby says:

    “… those continuing to expand the government are the enablers of corporatism ….”

    Well, now. Here’s an interesting state of mind. It should only be more prevalent.

    Except, Matt, consider … we have no control at all over the corporate components of corporatism … but we can exercise, with monumental effort, control over our government.

  7. Tina says:

    Libby writes: “we have no control at all over the corporate components of corporatism…but we can exercise, with monumental effort, control over our government.”

    As government continues to grow ever bigger the power we have in our lives, community, or government diminishes and corporatism, as exercised by government officials taking bribes, becomes more prevalent.

    Only with limited government will we experience freedom and power in our lives and remove the incentive for corporations to seek influence and gain power over weak, corrupted government officials.

    Corporations want to do their thing without being subjected to UNREASONABLE tax and regulation burdens. They lobby government because it tends to write punishing complex regulation and taxation laws that make it expensive and difficult to do business and depress the economy, opportunity, and innovation.

    The problem with the left isn’t that they care about clean air and water…who doesn’t?

    The problem with the left is they go to unnecessary extremes that cost the people too much and don’t produce enough difference to make it worthwhile.

    Creating economic disaster for miniscule return in terms of cleaner air and water is just plain STUPID.

    Example. Draconian regulations now being imposed on the coal industry forces immediate compliance rather than giving the industry a reasonable time frame in which to make the changes. The damaging result is much higher energy that greatly impact individuals and businesses, and lost jobs and higher prices for goods and services. This radical approach does not take peoples lives and livelihoods into consideration. That is putting the perfect ideal (impossible to achieve) ahead of the current necessity needs of the people…that’s cold.

  8. matt says:

    i will have to come back when i have more time , however corpratism is directly related to the power of government, who do you think are righting the laws and regulations. bureaucrats and corporate interests
    squashing the little guy , why do you think you need a license to cut hair? or be a florist , licensing acts as a barrier eliminating competition

    without the enforcers of government these corporations would not be-able to maintain their monopoly control
    2. look around our government is competely bought and paid for by special interests, why did no bankers go to prison over what happened in 2008?
    the S>E>C F>DA> amongst a majority of our government is massively corrupt its called regulator capture

  9. Libby says:

    “… why do you think you need a license to cut hair?”

    Ah, the permanent wave. You’re probably too young to remember, and of course guys don’t know a lot about this stuff anyway. You have to be licensed to cut hair, so that I can be sure that you’ve been properly taught to use the chemicals involved … and won’t scauld the hair off my head.

    Now, I’m not saying you … but I expect my legislators not to be ignorant. They’re supposed to know why things are the way they are. (The Tea Party Legislators regularly display an appalling ignorance of that which they propose to dismantle.)

    And maybe hair dresser licensing is something that could be altered, because they don’t use the scaulding chemicals much anymore. But you know, if the hair dressers wanted this changed, it would be changed. Professionals actually like to have their stamp of professionalism.

    “… why did no bankers go to prison over what happened in 2008?”

    Well, a couple did. I’m afraid this is where the monumental effort comes in. Obama has been a huge disappointment in this respect. Maybe Hilary will do better?

  10. Tina says:

    The government could use the haircut.

    The regulations are so complex that experts and lawyers disagree about what they mean. How is the business community supposed to comply when the politicians collude with a few crooks and write laws they can then manipulate and use to enrich themselves.

    Nobody here at PS has ever suggested eliminating government entirely. Libby exaggerates our positions.

    We are for smaller government…simple, clear regulations that are easily interpreted and strictly enforced. The best deterrence for criminality is swift and painful punishment of wrongdoing.

    Regulators failed big time before the crash.

    “… why did no bankers go to prison over what happened in 2008?”

    Legislators, like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and bureaucrats like Jamie Gorelick know that the biggest reason is that the banks were not actually breaking laws. The laws were stupidly written and regulators failed to observe and enforce.

    The dirty little secret is that some of the laws forced banks to do business in the ways that encouraged what they call irrational exuberance by investors. Lowered lending standards was one of them. Politicians and bankers in the know were making a bundle on the scheme…others had no way of knowing what was happening. In fact only a couple of people saw what was coming. George Bush favored the idea that more people could buy homes but he warned that regulations needed to be changed every year of his presidency.

    Some of the bigger bankers were paid back for the mess by being forced to bail out or buy out other banks when the whole mess toppled like a house of cards, excuse the expression. A couple of them actually went to jail.

    CS Monitor:

    …according to

    Michael J. McGrath Jr., former president of U.S. Mortgage Corp., got 14 years in prison for orchestrating a conspiracy that defrauded credit unions and Fannie Mae of $136 million.

    Lee B. Farkas, former chairman of Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., got 30 years in prison and was ordered to forfeit $38.5 million, for his role in a $3 billion scheme to rip off banks through the sale of fake mortgage assets.

    Asked at a Thursday news conference about the lack of Wall St. prosecutions, President Obama said this:

    [O]ne of the biggest problems about the collapse of Lehman and the subsequent financial crisis and the whole subprime lending fiasco is that a lot of that stuff wasn’t necessarily illegal, it was just immoral or inappropriate or reckless. That’s exactly why we needed to pass Dodd-Frank, to prohibit some of these practices….

    The article continues:

    But what about subprime mortgages? Weren’t there tons of evil things going on there that went well beyond stupidity? Yes – but it’s often hard to make the case that executives are to blame. Consider Countrywide, one of the most notorious subprime lenders, whose CEO, Angelo Mozilo, is far from a sympathetic figure. As the New York Times writes:

    The problem is that Mr. Mozilo, though he helped create the culture that made such predatory lending acceptable, never made the fraudulent loans himself. Legally, if not morally, he’s off the hook.

    Unfortunately Dodd Frank has not helped much and the government is once again using the same terrible lending forces that got us into trouble. Jonathan Turly

    This seems vaguely familiar. The Obama administration has started a full court push to get banks to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit. After the housing collapse leading to the tanking of economy, many experts pointed out in congressional hearings on the problem of loans to unqualified owners and that Congress spent years demanding more and more loans to low income families with bad credit. However, President Obama has pledged that low income families would again be able to enjoy home ownership in his recent State of the Union address. …

    housing officials in the Administration are pushing for formal assurances to the banks that no one will face legal or financial penalties if these loans (as in the past) result in defaults and foreclosures. Interest rates are at an all time low (we just refinanced our home at an unbelievable rate). It is possible to secure exceptional rates for a home with a relatively low downpayment. The loans being pushed by the Administration concerns applicants who, even with the low interest rates, are not viewed by banks as good risks to actually pay off the loan. While more homes are likely to be built in helping the economy, more people will likely lose their credit and down payment money in foreclosures.

    Matt, corporations are not all involved with politicians in government but those who are have no power that the politicians don’t give them. Only the politicians can actually write and pass laws.

    Corrupt politicians write laws that will give them a method to make money or push an agenda. We need to rid ourselves of corrupt politicians. Less government, simple easy to understand laws and regulations can’t be so easily manipulated. Term limits on them might be a good idea. We limit the term of the President, why not the Congress Critters?

    Plus, local banks have disappeared and bigger banks have grown…thanks lefty’s!

    A lot of Banks have failed…poof…since the crash:

    Since January 2008 through today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation shows 487 banks have failed, with 22 failures just so far this year. With an average of two bank failures per year in the five years before the crash, that means banks are still failing at 10 times the pre-crash rate. But the numbers get worse from there.

    While the FDIC shows 487 banks have failed, other data at the FDIC show that a total of 1,306 banks have disappeared since March 31, 2009, along with $1.5 trillion in deposits. The difference is that 819 banks or savings associations have merged, typically to survive. The missing deposits likely went to pay down debts, moved to uninsured money market funds, into the stock market or bond mutual funds to earn extra yield.

    According to March 31, 2009 data from the FDIC, there were 8,246 FDIC insured institutions with total domestic deposits of $7.5 trillion. Four institutions, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup, four institutions out of 8,246, controlled at that time 35 percent of all the insured domestic deposits.

    Now fast forward to June 30, 2013. According to FDIC data, the 8,246 banks and savings institutions have melted away to a new total of 6,940. Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co. and Citigroup, now control a combined $3.511 trillion in domestic deposits, a stunning 58.8 percent of all 6,940 U.S. banks’ domestic deposits of $5.966 trillion. The market share of these four giants has increased by an astonishing 24 percent in just 4 years.

    But it gets even worse. Each of these four banks that have cumulatively gained a 24 percent increase in market share are the same banks charged by the Federal regulators in swindle after swindle against the American public. As many have long suspected, this data conclusively proves that crime pays on Wall Street.

    The reason we continue to see a dramatic decline in total numbers of banks and savings institutions is that the regulations imposed on the community banks because of the wrongdoing of the big banks, is forcing many to merge with larger banks to be able to afford the dramatic increase in compliance costs.

Comments are closed.