FR friend Gabriella Holt of Los Angeles County, who is heading up an effort to qualify an initiative to enact a part-time legislature (www.reformcal.com) sent over a note with a startling relevation that clearly demonstrates that the Democrats running the State Legislature are completely tone deaf.
According to Holt, yesterday, the State Assembly passed legislation creating the California Blueberry Commission at a cost of well over a million dollars.
“This is one more example of why we need to return to a part-time, citizen legislature in California,” says Holt — and she is right!
File this under, “You Can't Make This Up…”
June 4th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Did a quick search and this is AB 606 by Assemblywoman Ma.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:00 am
How about filing this under “I don’t know what I’m talking about.”
This won’t cost California taxpayers a dime.
AB 606 was requested by the blueberry industry. It’s an assessment on blueberry producers and handlers only (not a tax, not in the general fund).
Funds go to blueberry marketing and research so California growers can better compete against those from other states and nations. In other words, create jobs here in the Golden State.
Btw, Republicans overwhelmingly supported this in Ag Committee, Appropriations Committee, and on the Assembly floor.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Out of curiosity why is the state involved at all? If the blueberry industry wants to have its own group they don’t need approval of the state unless they want to utilize the state to take money from citizens and businesses by force. If the blueberry commission is truly a money making venture they would have the voluntary full support of their industry without the utilization of legal theft by the state. If a blueberry grower is forced to pay the assessments then it is a tax.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
AB 606, as amended, Ma. California Blueberry Commission.
Existing law establishes various commissions to promote
agricultural products from the state.
This bill would create the California Blueberry Commission in
state government with a prescribed membership, and would specify the
powers, duties, and responsibilities of the commission. The
commission would be authorized to carry out programs of education,
promotion, marketing, and research relating to blueberries. The bill
would authorize the commission to levy an assessment, not to exceed a
specified amount, according to the marketing season, on producers
and handlers of blueberries, and would authorize the expenditure of
those funds for purposes of implementing the bill, thereby making an
appropriation.
The bill, except as necessary to conduct an election, would not
become operative until the producers and handlers of blueberries, by
referendum, vote in favor of the bill’s provisions, as prescribed.
The bill would also provide for the suspension of the operation of
its provisions and for concluding the operations of the commission.
The bill would make rendering or furnishing false reports, secreting,
destroying, or altering records, failing to furnish a report, or
failing or refusing to furnish to the commission information
concerning the name and address of persons from whom blueberries are
received, a misdemeanor, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
program by creating a new crime. The bill would authorize the
commission to bring certain civil actions to enforce the bill’s
provisions and regulations adopted pursuant to these provisions. The
bill would also authorize the commission to recommend to the
Secretary of Food and Agriculture the adoption of blueberry quality
standards, product labeling, or marketing activity, as provided.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
my favorite line:
“failing or refusing to furnish to the commission information
concerning the name and address of persons from whom blueberries are
received, a misdemeanor”
yeah this is what they need to waste their time on!!!
June 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Sean, you are spot on. AB 606 was requested by the California Blueberry Association who wanted to transform themselves into a Blueberry Commission so they could collect “assessments” to promote blueberries. As an Association their ability to collect “dues” was limited. They needed to up the ante because the blueberry industry is booming.
AB 606 is a state mandated bill, which means mandated costs to any public agency, that must comply, are paid by the state…yes paid out of taxpayer dollars.
Also, the Blueberry Commission levies assessments (tax, fee, assessment, what’s the difference – extra cost on a product). Ten years ago, California blueberry production barely registered on the radar screen. Today, the state is the fifth-largest highbush blueberry producer in the United States behind only Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon and Washington.
Now they want to add assessments for job creation, market research and promotion of blueberries? Looks like the industry was booming before a “Commission” was formed. I see, business is booming time to regulate it.
Yep, that’s our Legislature…strangulation through regulation.
Who is going to pay for these assessments? Not the industry, they will be a pass through to the consumer. Have you bought a basket of blueberries lately? They are very pricey..well stick around just like everything else in California…they’re just about to get pricier…ergo another way to drive industry out of our state.
Perfect example why we need to scale back the legislature to part time. File this under “Bullseye”!
June 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Brie, Perhaps you should take a little lesson in “how to read a bill.”
The analysis says there is no mandate and no general fund cost.
The industry WANTS this legislation because it believes it HELP their industry. I never really know what goes on inside a Republican’s head, but I suspect that’s the reason every single one of them in the Assembly except one supported it.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Steven, “the industry” you refer to is the California Blueberries Association consisting of dues paying members and related dues paying trade members. The Association was limited to charging “dues” to members and could NOT levy assessments on EVERY blueberry grower and handler in California. The Association lobbied the Legislature for this “Commission” so they could levy assessments on EVERY blueberry grower and handler in California and NOT limited to “association members”. Not only do they get to levy the assessment on every blueberry grower, and handler, they even went so far as to criminalize those “industry growers” who fail to comply.
Are you kidding me? Smacks like another power grab at an “entity” that saw a major trough of money with this burdgeoning industry and had to get in on the action. The producers and handlers who vote on whether to approve this now authorized “Blueberry Commission” are the “members” of the Blueberry Association..not every blueberry grower and handler in California are members or get to vote on whether or not to authorize this Commission and its related assessments. Talk about taxation without representation.
To be a member of the Association was voluntary by paying dues, now it’s mandatory for every grower and handler whether they wish to participate or not. More government, more administrative regulations, more power, more influence. Another regulation which may push blueberry growers and handlers out of business or out of the state.
About a little lesson in “how to read a bill” here is an exact excerpt from AB 606..”The bill would make rendering or furnishing false reports, secreting,
destroying, or altering records, failing to furnish a report, or
failing or refusing to furnish to the commission information
concerning the name and address of persons from whom blueberries are
received, a misdemeanor, thereby imposing a state-mandated local
program by creating a new crime.”
What is it exactly about “thereby, imposing a state-mandated local program by creating a new crime” do you not understand?
Oh, in case you forgot the definition of “mandated cost” here it is: Government Code Section 17514 states “Costs mandated by the State” means any increased cost which a local agency or school district is required to incur as a result of a statute enacted on or after January 1, 1975, or any executive order implementing any statute enacted on or after January 1, 1975 which mandates a new program or higher level of service of an existing program.
Ergo, mandated program, mandated costs paid by the state..funded by yours truly..the California taxpayer.
So Steven, I believe I have learned all my little lessons in “how to read a bill”. Perhaps you need a little lesson to understand “total costs” of legislation and regulations and their direct deficit impacts to the General Fund. It is your kind of understanding about “no cost” analysis that has gotten us into this $40 billion dollar mess and climbing.
By the way, are you up for an appointment to the newly authorized California Blueberry Commission?
June 6th, 2009 at 12:00 am
One question should be asked to Steven: Has he ever worked in the private sector or been picking bluberries lately?
June 8th, 2009 at 12:00 am
To Allen: Yes, I own my own small business. And I picked up a quart or blueberries at the Farmers Market on Sunday. The grower strongly supported the bill.
To Brie: Thanks for making my point. The only ‘state mandate” in the bill is when someone breaks the law; this is a standard provision.
And here’s another lesson for you: supply and demand. When more blueberries are sold, the price will be lower.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Steven, thanks for making my point then, every law that is passed is a state mandate and therefore has state mandated costs. Appreciate the confirmation.
Here’s another economy lesson for you on supply and demand: The cost of assessments levied on the blueberries will be passed through to the consumer through higher prices on the blueberries. Economics Basics – The law of demand states that the higher the price of a good, the less people will demand that good. In other words, the higher the price, the lower the quantity demanded. The amount of a good that buyers purchase at a higher price is less because as the price of a good goes up, so does the opportunity cost of buying that good. As a result, people will naturally avoid buying a product that will force them to forgo the consumption of something else they value more because it is cheaper and provides the same “value” to the buyer.