“Late! Late! Late!” said the White Rabbit.

After an embarrassing 100 days after the start of the 2010-11 fiscal year, the California Legislature finally approved the most-delayed budget in state history. The passed budget, one I voted against, is flawed. It is not balanced and moves our budget “woes” on to next year while doing little to solve the inherent problems our state faces.

While the passage of a “no-tax” compromise budget is welcome news for many Californians sick and tired of Sacramento politics, the delay could have averted if the Democrats, who control the Legislature, had worked with the Republicans earlier. After all, Governor Schwarzenegger released his budget proposal on January 8, giving Democrats ample time to craft their counterproposal and begin negotiations with him and the legislative Republicans.

The majority party controls the legislative calendar so discussion on the budget never occurred. In fact, my Assembly Republican colleagues and I asked Democrats to begin bipartisan negotiations in early March so we could avert this painful budget delay. We even placed 100-day countdown posters on our office doors to let Democrats know how many days were left before the end of the fiscal year. Sadly, the Democrats decided to hold out in the vain hope that Republicans would agree to raise your taxes. This was in stark contrast to the Republicans proposal, who lined up behind the Governor’s no-tax budget framework in early May. Democrats could barely agree on which taxes to raise. As a result, the constitutional deadline to pass a budget on June 15 came and went. It wasn’t until August that the majority party Democrats released a budget relying on billions in middle-class tax increases; a plan that was utterly unrealistic given California’s high unemployment rate. Higher taxes would have killed more jobs.

While I am pleased that Californians were spared from higher taxes this year, there was no excuse for the Legislature to pass a budget 100 days after it was due. If my company did that, I would be out of business; if a student turned in their work that late, they would receive an “F.”

While the deadline to pass the 2011-12 budget is less than eight months away, it is imperative that the top priority of the incoming Legislature and new Governor must be to a balanced, on-time budget. We cannot afford another 100-day impasse that will worsen our long-term budget problems and damage our economic recovery. Lawmakers should not be working on lesser priorities and trivial bills until we pass a no-tax balanced budget. We must consider reforms that will encourage a speedier process, such as adopting a two-year budget which would allow more time to study the effectiveness of state spending. I am even in favor of not getting paid until a budget is passed.

While we took a good step this year by placing reforms on the 2012 ballot that will create a “rainy day fund”, we need to do much more. Passing an on-time balanced budget will depend on the Democrats’ ability to realize that higher taxes only kill jobs and make our state’s problems worse. Until there are more fiscal conservatives in the Legislature, fasten your seatbelts; we could be in for another long and bumpy ride next year.

Assemblyman Hagman discusses private vs. public jobs

At a time when 2.2 million Californians are out-of-work, even Democrats now agree that job creation must be government’s top priority this year.

It seems everyone is now talking about jobs, but actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to votes on pro-jobs legislation.

Recently the California Chamber of Commerce, an organization familiar with the job creation process, ranked lawmakers on their votes on crucial legislation last year. Assembly Republicans earned a cumulative 99 percent rating while Assembly Democrats received a 26 percent rating.

Although it is good that Democrats are at least talking about jobs this year, they are not talking about creating an economic climate that is favorable to private sector entrepreneurship.

Instead, they are talking about jobs subsidized by taxpayers, financed by unsustainable big government programs in health and welfare. Democrats claim that their approach would protect jobs yet what they don’t say is that their proposals would only protect government jobs. These jobs are tied to powerful public employee unions who have resisted attempts to cut costs to help the state live within its means.

In contrast, Republicans have pushed a package of bills this year designed to jump-start private sector job growth because we recognize that real economic growth comes from areas such as manufacturing and retail. The main reason our economy is weak is because the private sector has lost almost 1.3 million jobs since 2005, resulting in drastic declines in tax revenues. Even worse, the state has added more than 38,000 government jobs in the same time period according to figures provided by the Employment Development Department.

These numbers make it clear we have a jobs crisis in the private sector, not in government. Assembly Democrats ignore this reality by rejecting spending reductions. Instead they proposed a complicated scheme of more borrowing and more taxes on job creators to protect the growth in government jobs. These higher taxes include $900 million in new oil taxes each year, which would cause gas prices to go even higher. This would be in addition to other proposals to raise taxes on income, car registration, and even Internet sales. In the end, the people who would lose the most under the Democrat approach would be taxpayers forced to pay higher taxes and employers who will find it even more costly to create and retain jobs in California.

As a small-business owner, I understand that job creation must expand in the private sector. To stimulate private sector job growth, I have supported proposals to streamline the permit process for new businesses and to also provide investment tax credits to emerging industries. I also authored legislation that would ensure existing funds help businesses train new employees which would be used for its intended purpose only, and not diverted to protect welfare programs.

Unfortunately these and other Republican ideas were killed by Democrats, who continue to push for higher taxes. More taxes will cause the private sector to shrink even further. If we want California to get back on track, then the Democrats who lead the Legislature need to realize that we need private businesses to prosper here, rather than in other states. The sooner they realize that, the sooner we can get people back to work.

Assemblyman Hagman discusses California’s current budget crisis

Weeks have passed since the beginning of the 2010-11 fiscal year to pass a state budget. Yet California is still without one and people are right to ask what on earth is going on in Sacramento.

Months before the budget deadline, my Republican colleagues and I called on Democrats to work with us. We posted 100-day countdown calendars on our office doors as a reminder that the deadline was fast approaching and urged them to work with us so we would have a solution in time.

Unfortunately, the Democrat leadership rebuffed our hand of cooperation. They instead said that they would rather delay the budget process until Republicans agree to raise your taxes and reject spending reductions.

Some political observers even said that the delay could be a ploy to convince Californians that the two-thirds requirement to pass a budget was the main cause of the delay. One liberal Democrat went so far to say that his party should allow the state to reach a more desperate situation when kids go back to school in August to get Republicans to sign off on higher taxes.

In the meantime, I have been meeting with constituents and stakeholders to listen to their budget concerns. We discussed ways we can address those concerns in a difficult economy and conveyed their suggestions to my colleagues. Yet we have seen no real action from Democrats, other than press conferences to pound home the theme that the state “needs more revenue “(code for higher taxes) to protect government spending and welfare programs we cannot afford.

Even more telling, we have not seen a unified and detailed budget proposal from Senate and Assembly Democrats that can be vetted. All they have put forward is a “statement of principles” that reaffirms their commitment to big government. A statement of principles is not a serious budget that will close a $19.1 billion deficit.

As a result, without a balanced budget in place California state government spends $52 million more each day than it receives in revenues.

In contrast, my Republican colleagues and I have made it clear that we support the Governor’s budget blueprint he released in May. It is a detailed plan that addresses the deficit without higher taxes.

Republicans have always been willing to work with Democrats to craft a bipartisan budget that protects taxpayers and funds essential services such as schools without raising taxes. We know that tough choices will need to be made to reduce spending, which is why we have asked Democrats for months to work with us.

Yet the Democrat leadership shows no signs of urgency and refuses to budge, hoping that weeks of delay will work to their advantage. We must get down to work on the budget now, so we can get California back on track. It is long overdue for Democrats to work with Republicans on passing a responsible no-tax budget that will move our state forward. A delay may serve the interests of a few liberal politicians and interest groups, but it hurts the state as a whole.

Passing a balanced budget is one of the most important – if not the most important – duty of a legislator. We are elected to make tough choices and I stand ready to do my part to craft a responsible, no-tax budget as soon as possible.

Assemblyman Hagman supports the recent Supreme Court decision that upholds our Constitutional right to bear arms.

Californians who legally own firearms can be encouraged by last month’s U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling. In a landmark decision, the Court found that the constitutional right to bear arms applies not just to the federal government, but to state and local governments as well. In other words, owning a gun in the home for self defense is now officially recognized as a fundamental American right that cannot be violated by overzealous politicians on any level of government.

This is a remarkable defense of our Second Amendment right. This specific issue came about because Chicago instituted a misguided city-wide ban on handguns, which was intended to clamp down on deadly gun violence. Instead of just targeting thugs, it restricted law-abiding residents from owning guns to protect themselves in their own homes. Thankfully the Supreme Court saw it correctly, acknowledging that “Self defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,” as Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. The Court’s ruling recognizes the original intent of the Second Amendment which provides that: “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

However, this victory is only a first step, as it is still unclear where the decision will lead for the future of our current gun laws and those that could be enacted in the future. Indeed, Justice Alito wrote that the ruling “does not imperil every law regulating firearms.” In the years going forward there will be significant battles over the true meaning of this ruling, and the numerous complex rules and regulations governing firearms. Particularly in California, the ruling gives Second Amendment supporters a powerful argument to challenge dubious proposals that hurt lawful gun owners. We now need to work on challenging the most restrictive laws that are already in place. While no one can predict the long-term consequences of the Court’s ruling, there is a good chance it will lead to future victories over restrictions on Second Amendment rights and force lawmakers to think twice before passing more burdensome laws.

Government has a critical responsibility to help ensure the safety of our families, but it needs do act in ways that respect our rights as a free people. We can keep our communities safe by improving enforcement of existing laws that target criminals who use guns. Taking guns away from the “bad guys” and putting them behind bars will make California safer, without targeting law-abiding citizens.

With the Supreme Court’s reaffirmation at the judicial level, I hope we can now move beyond debating attempts to undermine the Second Amendment in the Legislature. It is time for lawmakers to stop undermining lawful gun owners with more restrictive measures and to start working on issues that matter most to hardworking Californians, such as job creation.

Assemblyman Hagman discusses California’s economic climate.

Unfortunately, The Clash’s 1982 hit single is ringing true with California’s businesses today. Senate and Assembly Democrats have released their respective budget solution which adds more than $6 billion in higher taxes and $9 billion in new borrowing. This comes only a year after the legislature passed a massive $12.5 billion tax hike on Californians, which was the largest tax hike in our state’s history.

The Democrats claim their proposals are about jobs, but nothing in their plans will do anything to bring to a halt more California businesses leaving to a less burdensome state. In fact, private sector jobs were ignored in their report as they promoted government jobs and so-called green jobs. We will continue to see an exodus of private sector jobs to other states that have lower taxes and regulations.

As a small business owner myself, I know firsthand how complex it is to comply with all the government regulations imposed by the Legislature. Combined with the high taxes and fees that each business has to pay, it is very expensive to retain jobs, much less create new ones. Sadly, my experience is similar to thousands of other small business owners who find it hard to compete in California. During the past 18 months I have found numerous business entrepreneurs, like the following three, who have shared their experiences about the punitive business climate in California. A) The CEO of an aerospace parts manufacturer in the San Gabriel Valley recently said that “Regulations, taxes, uncertainty about state leadership make California unlikely for future expansion.” He said they are expanding in Nevada instead where it is easier to create jobs. B) Another manufacturer of medical devices said that taxes are hurting their ability to grow and that Sacramento is not listening to their needs. C) Yet another CEO of a bakery business said that “California bureaucracy is endless” and seriously considering leaving the state.

With more than 2.3 million Californians unemployed, it is clear that the Legislature must make job creation a top priority. That means stopping the migration of businesses to other states and countries, and fostering a more welcoming businesses environment with less red tape and lower taxes. If we do not foster such an environment, more businesses and the tax revenues they generate will leave the state, which will leave less money for public services such as education and law enforcement. More businesses are sure to leave if the “raising taxes Democrats” get their way on a variety of things such as gas and income. This will make our budget problems even worse.

The problem is not that hard-working Californians and job-creating businesses are paying too little in taxes, as they already bear the seventh-highest tax burden in the nation according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation. The real problem is that we do not have enough Californians working and businesses thriving so they can generate tax revenue. In other words, California has a jobs problem, not a tax problem.

Right now, I am fighting hard to pass legislation that will make it easier for entrepreneurs to invest and create jobs in California. With more people working, we will see more products and services being bought, which will lead to more tax revenue to fund the public services we need. It would be a win-win situation that will turn our state around. Instead of focusing on what taxes need to be raised and by how much, it is time for the Legislature to focus on creating and retaining jobs in California. We need to make sure Clash’s punk-rock band lyrics don’t become the new mantra for this decade.

Eagle Scout Assemblyman Hagman discusses the Assembly’s decision to reject a State Resolution that would have honored the Boy Scouts of America.

One hundred years ago, the Boy Scouts of America was founded, inspiring generations of young men to become outstanding citizens and community leaders. Why did the Assembly Democrats adopt a resolution recognizing the Girl Scouts, yet at the same time reject the proposal to honor the 100th Anniversary of the Boy Scouts? It is disappointing that in today’s California political climate, equality for atheists, gays and lesbians is now brought into the arena of Scouting. The State Capitol’s political agenda has gotten in the way of recognizing a great institution. As an Eagle Scout, and co-author of the Boy Scout resolution, I am one of the millions of young men who proudly served as a Scout.

This is yet another instance of just how out-of-sync some politicians are with the values of California families. Assembly Democrats decided to defeat the resolution. Analysis of the bill, written by Democrat staff, even attacked the young men for saying the Scout Oath and Law. According to them, this bill suddenly became “a controversial resolution” because the Boy Scouts do not adhere to the same political views as the Democratic party. It is truly ridiculous that a resolution to honor young men who volunteer in the community, learn to be good citizens and safeguard our natural resources be chastised for their beliefs.

Mainstream America knows that Scouting has contributed to the positive development of Presidents, astronauts, current members of Congress and even today’s Legislature. But the Democratic Staff Report listed the Boy Scouts as “an organization that has long discriminated against individuals.” Even worse, Democrats congratulate themselves for killing similar resolutions to honor the Boy Scouts, which they have done eight times in the past decade. In reality, Scouts do not discriminate against any religious faith. Scout troops are chartered by churches and groups of many religious faiths, including numerous Christian denominations, the Jewish faith, Buddhism, and Islam, among others. They do not discriminate against any one religion. Atheists and others are free to join or form any group they wish. When you look at the overall record of Scouting, I am certain sensible people will agree that this is hardly an organization deserving of such scorn.

So why would the Democrats proudly lead the charge to condemn an organization that has done so much good for so many young people? Is sexual orientation and atheistic recognition so vital that they would refuse to honor and recognize one of our nation’s largest organizations? The truth is in what happened to each resolution. For the Girl Scout’s, language was added to recognize them for “inclusion of all sexual orientations”, so the resolution passed. Assembly Republicans refused to include such language to the Boy Scout resolution, so it failed. Comments were made that the Boy Scouts “steadfastly continue to discriminate against individuals because of their sexual orientation or religious views. Not allowing atheists into Scouts defies both American and Scouting values.” It was improper to introduce sexuality and religion into what should have been innocent proclamations of support for two iconic youth groups.

I value everything I learned from my Scoutmasters; especially their lessons on patriotism, citizenship, service and respect. California’s Boy Scouts should be recognized for their commitment to our state and communities. Scouts have over 2.8 million participants, 35 million hours of community service in 2008 alone, and those countless volunteer hours from parents. They deserve the praise and congratulations from the California Legislature for their legacy of work and service to our nation. It is unfortunate that sexual orientation and religion has entered into this well-deserved recognition. As for me, I am sending a 100th Anniversary Certificate to every Boy Scout Troop in the 60th Assembly district as an expression of my appreciation for their service.

A Sacramento County man was arrested on suspicion of attempted rape Wednesday, just a day after he was released early from a county jail because of new state guidelines aimed at decreasing the state’s inmate population.

Arrest of newly freed prisoner fuels controversy over early releases
James Rufus Koren, Staff Writer
Created: 02/04/2010 07:04:47 PM PST

A Sacramento County man was arrested on suspicion of attempted rape Wednesday, just a day after he was released early from a county jail because of new state guidelines aimed at decreasing the state’s inmate population.

The arrest set of a chorus of I-told-you-sos from Republican lawmakers, who, along with some Democrats, voted against the plan in August and September.

“This criminal was sentenced in 2008 for assault with a deadly weapon but somehow he was classified as a non-violent offender,” Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, said in a statement. “If we are unable to tell who the dangerous criminals are we have no business issuing get-out-of-jail-free cards.”

The Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department confirmed that the man, Kevin Eugene Peterson, was released because of the early release plan.

Hagman, vice chairman of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, said he has called for a halt to early releases.

This summer, lawmakers approved a bill that changed many of the state’s sentencing guidelines. The law took effect Jan. 25, and both state and local authorities have been reviewing prisoner records and releasing inmates.

As of Wednesday, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department had released 404 prisoners from its four county jails, spokeswoman Jodi Miller said, and found more than 1,100 prisoners who will meet the early release guidelines at some point. Another 62 prisoners will have hearings to determine if they meet the new guidelines.

San Bernardino Police Chief Keith Kilmer said local agencies need to re-evaluate who they are releasing in light of Wednesday’s arrest.

“We need to be real careful about what the criteria are for release,” Kilmer said. “We really need to make sure we’re communicating, the state and local agencies, as far as who is being released.”

Assemblyman Steve Knight, R-Palmdale, said the early releases could lead to more crime, both because of more criminals being released and less fear of prosecution among criminals because of the shortened sentences.

“You’ve got people that will offend out on the street, and now they know their penalty is being reduced,” said Knight, a former Los Angeles police officer. “It’s risk and reward: If the risk is not that big of a deal but the reward is OK, then you’re going to be enticed.”

Kilmer agreed, saying he expects an increase in property crime because of the new guidelines.

Assemblywoman Norma Torres, D-Ontario, who voted for the early release bill, said Wednesday’s arrest makes clear the stakes lawmakers have to consider when making cuts to the prison system or changing sentencing laws.

“There are huge budgetary issues in the state of California,” she said. “People are comparing prison budgets to school budgets and saying we don’t want to fund prisons. When they don’t want to fund prisons, we have to make some very, very tough decisions.”

james.koren@inlandnewspapers.com
909-386-3826

During my years of service to our community, I have made public safety one of my highest priorities. If California’s families cannot feel safe in their neighborhoods, little else of what government does matters.

Perspectives: Privatizing Prisons: Contracting out can help reduce costs
By Assemblyman Curt Hagman
Posted: 01/30/2010 06:12:25 AM PST

During my years of service to our community, I have made public safety one of my highest priorities. If California’s families cannot feel safe in their neighborhoods, little else of what government does matters.

That is why I am committed to doing everything possible in the state Assembly to ensure that law enforcement and the state prison system have everything they need to do their jobs.

As I enter the debate of how to address California’s $20 billion budget deficit, I will continue to make public safety a top priority. At the same time, lawmakers must take responsible steps to diminish spending in every area of government, and our prison system is no exception. All of us know that prisons are facing considerable challenges, including overcrowding and mismanagement under the current model.

Nevertheless, the status quo in our prisons is intolerable and releasing prisoners to cut costs is certainly not an option.

Here are the facts: California spends a staggering $50,000 per prisoner each year, while the next 10 largest states in the nation spend an average of only $32,000. Texas, which holds nearly as many inmates as California, spends less than $20,000 per inmate, clearly showing that our state is paying much more than it should to keep criminals behind bars.

And yet, even though we pay more than twice as much per prisoner as Texas, our prison facilities are still overcrowded and antiquated. Our prison system has become
unsustainable. Lawmakers need to fundamentally rethink the way California manages its inmates.

Over the past three years, the cost of California’s prison bureaucracy has increased 105 percent, even though the inmate population has remained relatively stable. Health care costs alone soared 325 percent in the past 12 years, and we now spend more on an inmate’s health care than on a law-abiding Californian. With all of these costs spiraling out-of-control, the state must pursue innovative reforms immediately.

Every idea for restructuring must be on the table, including building cheaper modular prisons and allowing non-governmental businesses to deliver services such as inmate health care. Private business can play a significant role in reducing costs by billions of dollars each year. If California’s costs were cut to the average of other large states, we could save up to $4 billion in taxpayer dollars a year, without releasing criminals early. Those funds can then be spent to protect the state’s other priorities, such as education.

Whether it is building new prisons or delivering inmate health care, turning to others will help.

One advantage of allowing the private sector to deliver services is that it introduces competition. If a company fails to perform, we can hold it accountable and allow another company to take over. The same can’t be said of government. Companies are not saddled with the same high, inflexible overhead. Even achieving a little bit of savings can go a long way toward addressing the state’s budget deficit.

I will work hard with my colleagues in the coming weeks to address our budget deficit in ways that do not put Californians in harm’s way or jeopardize the integrity of our justice system.

Make no mistake. Turning to non-state entities is not a cure-all for our prison system or an excuse for the Legislature to maintain wasteful spending in the bureaucracy. We cannot just pass reforms; we must restructure the state’s business in a new way.

Curt Hagman, R-Chino Hills, represents the 60th Assembly District which includes all or parts of Anaheim, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar, Industry, La Habra, La Habra Heights, La Mirada, Orange, Rowland Heights, San Dimas, Villa Park, Walnut, Whittier and Yorba Linda.

Assemblyman Curt Hagman wants to make sure that if you enter into an animal enclosure in a zoo, you are guilty of a misdemeanor. Hagman, R-Chino Hills, introduced AB 1675 this week in response to an incident at the San Francisco Zoo in which a 21-year-old man entered its grizzly-bear exhibit.

It’s Politics: Life’s a zoo for Assemblyman Curt Hagman Posted: 01/29/2010 04:48:28 PM PST Assemblyman Curt Hagman wants to make sure that if you enter into an animal enclosure in a zoo, you are guilty of a misdemeanor. Hagman, R-Chino Hills, introduced AB 1675 this week in response to an incident at the San Francisco Zoo in which a 21-year-old man entered its grizzly-bear exhibit.

A Superior Court judge eventually tossed the trespassing charges because the intruder had no intention of staying in the enclosure overnight. “We’re basically trying to close up this loophole,” Hagman said. “You don’t need intent to spend a certain period of time when a normal person knows it’s completely wrong to break through two fences.” Hagman said he’s been told there already have been copycat offenses. Because he’s on the Assembly Public Safety Committee, he was asked by representatives of the zoos to introduce the bill. It would – with exemptions for employees and public officers – make it a misdemeanor to enter an animal enclosure at a zoo without the consent of the zoo.

Read more: It’s Politics: Life’s a zoo for Assemblyman Curt Hagman – Whittier Daily News http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_14296958#ixzz0fQtC3W1s