The buck passing never stops in California

President Harry Truman had a sign on his desk that read “The Buck Stops Here.”

In an interview with legendary journalist Edward R. Murrow, he explained, as president, he was responsible for all the decisions of his administration and wouldn’t “pass the buck” to someone else.

In California, political leaders have elevated “buck passing” to an art form and are adept at making excuses for their litany of failures.

For example, progressive state and local leaders decry rising crime rates but they are the ones responsible for e ectively hamstringing law enforcement to such an extent that most crimes in California go either unreported or unpunished.

Even worse, as videos of gangs raiding stores appear daily, progressive legislators have introduced a bill, Senate Bill 553, which prohibits store employees from interfering with criminals in the act of shoplifting. (The California Retailers Association mocks the bill as an open invitation for thieves “to come in and steal.”)

Another example involves illegal immigration. Gov. Gavin Newsom railed against Florida o cials for sending a few dozen undocumented migrants to California and even went so far as to suggest Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis be arrested for kidnapping. Even left-leaning law professors thought this was foolish. But it was Gov. Newsom himself who noted that California, as a sanctuary state, would welcome undocumented migrants. So what was he expecting?

When it comes to the crisis with homelessness in California, our political leaders need to gaze in the mirror. The governor blames local governments for not building more housing units and issues threats — mostly to conservative cities — with ever increasingly draconian mandates. But he doesn’t make the same threats to localities where he is popular, like Marin County.

True to form, progressive politicians rarely accept responsibility for homelessness, which is driven in large part by rampant drug addiction and associated mental illness. Indeed, the problem is compounded by pushing decriminalization of drug dealing, not just drug use. Progressives just shot down proposed legislation imposing stricter penalties for selling fentanyl.

But the gold star winner in “passing the buck” could be seen in recent testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce. The hearing was ostensibly about the U.S. Department of Labor’s budget, but the elephant in the room was the $32 billion in fraudulent spending by California’s Employment Development Department which, at the time, was overseen by the person testifying, Julie Su.

Su is also President Biden’s designee to be the U.S. Secretary of Labor, but her nomination is floundering both for her progressive views on labor policy — she does little but parrot union talking points — and for her failure in addressing

■ See COUPAL, page A5

Letters to the Editor

A failed system

EDITOR:

In 1996 I was a systems engineer employed by MCI State Government systems based in Sacramento and assigned to the newly awarded California Department of Justice automated, paperless gun background check system (DROS). The system requirements were to complete multiple background checks of U.S. federal and state of California databases to determine whether or not the purchaser of a handgun or firearm could legally possess a firearm. The system was designed to: 1. Query each database (such as the Justice Department’s Consolidated Firearms Information System). 2. Wait for a response. 3. Release the gun if no response was issued to the gun dealer.

When I asked the state of California contract representative about the logic, and explained that between step 2 and step 3 there could be a computer error that prevented a response that denied the gun transaction, I was bluntly told to follow the requirements as they were and not design for a “positive” or “negative” a rmation from each database system because that would take too long and be too complex. I was much younger then and more naïve, but nonetheless

Belltower

outraged. Why would a system with a known logic flaw in the program, allowing it to fail, silently go into production for something as crucial as determining if a felon was attempting a gun purchase? I later realized the rationale was to simply allow government bureaucrats and politicians to claim victory without doing anything meaningful.

As the years have passed, I’ve often asked gun dealers I’ve visited in Auburn, Sacramento, Placerville, Rancho Cordova and nearby areas if they have had this “fail silent” issue impact their store. In every instance the dealer acknowledged that they have received a late notice or message indicating that the gun was sold to a criminal and to notify law enforcement to go and retrieve it. That is a failure in the most fundamental way. A simple, inexpensive two-stage process would alleviate the issue entirely. Imagine the benefits to our society. See for yourself at bit.ly/3qR1GBV.