Albert Pujols says he’s ready to manage in the major leagues

• March 2, 2025

TEMPE, Ariz. — With two championships under his belt from his first managing job, Albert Pujols says he’s ready for the next step.

Pujols managed Leones del Escogido to the championships of Dominican League and Caribbean Series this winter, and he confirmed on Sunday that he’ll manage the Dominican team in the World Baseball Classic next year.

Managing in the big leagues remains his ultimate goal, and he says he’s ready whenever the call comes.

“Time will tell,” said Pujols, who was in Angels camp to begin his annual stint as a guest instructor. “Whenever the opportunity comes, if there is some team knocking this year or next year, I mean, why not? I think right now I have a job, which is focusing on the World Baseball Classic, but if there’s any ball club knocking on the door, I’d be open to hear that.”

Angels manager Ron Washington, who is starting his 10th season as a big league manager, said he believes Pujols will be a major league manager.

“Albert was a student of the game,” Washington said. “His days in St. Louis proved that. Always in the right place. Always doing the right thing. Always came up with the big hit. Always was the cheerleader for the team. That’s why he has that pedigree. And it won’t be long before he has a managing job, that’s for sure.”

The next challenge for Pujols will be the WBC. A report surfaced on Saturday that he was going to get the job, and Pujols confirmed it on Sunday.

“It’s an honor,” he said. “I feel really proud to be able not just to be able to represent my country as a player when I did it, but now to be able to lead a great group of guys. I’m really excited. I’m really pumped up.”

For now, though, Pujols is wearing an Angels uniform. He said he plans to spend a few days with the major leaguers and then a few days with the minor leaguers. He said he also spends time during the season at the Angels’ player development complex in the Dominican Republic.

It’s all part of his responsibility as part of the $1 million a year personal services contract that was included in the 10-year, $240-million deal Pujols signed in 2011.

Pujols is joined this week by Vladimir Guerrero and Ervin Santana.

“I love being around those guys and just share my experience and help out the future of this organization,” Pujols said.

Washington said he hopes that the Angels young players take the opportunity to talk to the three guest instructors.

“Championship pedigree, that’s what they bring,” Washington said. “That’s what we’re working toward, a championship pedigree. And they are a part of that championship pedigree that’s been around here for a while. So much experience it’s just ridiculous. Whatever those guys are dreaming or thinking they can do, they’ve already done it. That helps.”

QUICK STUDY

Right-hander Ryan Johnson has made a good impression in his first big league camp, working three scoreless innings in two games.

“He was an animal, an animal that throws the ball across the plate,” Washington said of the 6-foot-6 pitcher. “I certainly hope he can control that energy, man. He expends a lot. That’s his makeup. Don’t get me wrong. But man, is he an animal. I can’t wait to watch him pitch and see exactly what he can do.”

Johnson, 22, was drafted by the Angels with the No. 74 pick in the 2024 draft. The selection, between the second and third rounds, was the Angels’ compensation for losing Shohei Ohtani as a free agent.

Johnson had a 2.21 ERA at Dallas Baptist, with 151 strikeouts and 14 walks in 106 innings. Because of his workload in college, he didn’t pitch in the minors last summer.

His first professional competition has been in big league camp this spring.

“It’s awesome,” Johnson said. “It’s a new experience for me. I’m enjoying every second of being around so many guys, so much experience. Being able to just have conversations, watch how they work.”

Johnson has opened eyes with his unorthodox delivery. He rushes the ball to the plate with a much quicker arm action than usual.

“That’s kind of just how it’s always been, just wanting to get in strong positions and then move as fast as I can,” Johnson said. “Just helps me move directionally, where I want to go, to help me stay in the zone.”

NOTES

Right-hander Michael Peterson is scheduled to make his first appearance of the spring on Monday. Peterson, who is in camp on a minor league deal, came up with an injury after an early bullpen session, so he “fell behind,” Washington said. Peterson, 30, pitched 16 games in relief last season with the Dodgers and Miami Marlins. …

The Angels made their first round of cuts, sending right-handers Victor Mederos, Chris Cortez, Austin Gordon and Angel Felipe, and catchers Dario Laverde and Alberto Rios to minor league camp. …

Washington said he’s been impressed with Christian Moore’s defensive improvement, even though he’s slumped at the plate lately. Moore, the Angels top position player prospect, got starts at second base on back-to-back days this weekend. Washington said he’ll get a start at third “pretty soon.”

​ Orange County Register 

After home burglary, LA podcaster’s hour on hold with 911 highlights dispatcher shortage

• March 2, 2025

A popular LA podcaster said on Instagram Saturday that the Los Angeles Police Department took 59 minutes to answer his 911 call after his home was burglarized.

City officials say the LAPD has a dispatcher shortage, despite hiring 100 additional dispatchers last year.

Evan Lovett, the host of LA in a Minute on YouTube, returned from his son’s baseball game on Friday evening, Feb. 28, only to discover that his home had been broken into and burglarized. Standing behind a pair of shattered sliding glass doors, Lovett said the burglars stole his wife’s family jewelry, coins, baseball cards, and other valuables, including a safe containing “everything that my dad gave me after he passed away.”

“This s–t is unnerving and it’s not cool. And I’ll tell you what else: I was on hold with 911 for 59 minutes, 59 minutes. Luckily, it was just a home burglary; it wasn’t someone dying, choking, or being shot, but what happens if it was a real-time emergency?” Lovett said in his Instagram video.

Lovett said police were “very nice” when they arrived but mentioned how “undermanned” they were. This is a real problem, he said.

Los Angeles Police Capt. Ray Valois told NBC Los Angeles that the department is working on hiring new dispatchers, and it was not unusual to experience longer wait times for non-emergency calls during evenings and weekends.

“When he called 911, the initial call was answered in 74 seconds. The initial operator very quickly got his story that the sliding glass door had been broken. He was inside the house, and there were no suspects at the location. Therefore, since his personal safety was not in immediate danger, the call was transferred to the non-emergency line where it took another 56, 57 minutes to answer,” Capt. Valois told the TV station.

Mayor Karen Bass called the delayed response “unacceptable” and said in a statement that over 100 dispatchers were hired last year, with more currently being hired. Los Angeles City Councilmember Nithya Raman said her office had been working closely with city leaders over the last few months to increase the number of 911 dispatchers being hired.

“911 wait times for non-urgent calls are unacceptably long right now due to low recruitment for open positions, for 911 operators and emergency and non-emergency calls being routed through the same operators,” Raman said in a statement released to KCAL News on Saturday.

​ Orange County Register 

Prop. 36 targets drugs, as we predicted

• March 2, 2025

In the November election, voters approved Proposition 36, which toughened anti-crime laws by turning many drug and theft crimes into felonies. It turned back the sentencing reforms from 2014’s Proposition 47, which had become a lightning rod for criticism as California faced a retail-theft wave. Prop. 36 passed with 68% of the vote — and passed overwhelmingly in every one of the state’s 58 counties, including notoriously progressive San Francisco.

Who can blame voters?

They tired of having ordinary goods locked behind glass cabinets, open-air drug markets around homeless encampments and news about smash-and-grab robberies. The latter robberies already were felonies, but viral videos crystallized the public’s frustration.

Prop. 36 offered a rebuke to the governor and most lawmakers, who reacted far too late to legitimate public frustration.

This Editorial Board received flak for opposing Prop. 36. “Many of the provisions of this measure are sure to be popular or hard to vote against,” our editorial argued. “But a vote for the measure is also a vote for very antiquated ideas: packing our prisons with people for simple drug possession and dealing with homelessness by locking up those with drug problems or who commit low-level theft.”

Early evidence is in and our fears were warranted. A report from the San Diego Union-Tribune found “drug crimes have made up the lion’s share of Proposition 36 cases in San Diego County — by a ratio of nearly three drug cases filed for every one retail theft.” Because the measure provides no new money for treatment, the law is sending more people to the jails and overwhelming court systems.

The report notes nearly all of the defendants in early Prop. 36 cases “had extensive criminal histories.” But getting the sentencing versus treatment balance right is tough. We agree that Prop. 47 needed to be supported with more consistent enforcement against theft and open-air drug markets , but Prop. 36 is heading too far the other way.

We’ll have to watch as data comes in from other counties, but we blame lawmakers for failing to act quickly against even the most obvious public disorder — and then leaving voters feeling as if they had little choice but to vent their frustration at the ballot box.

If California lawmakers can get their act together and invest in both crime prevention and drug addiction treatment, that would be a step forward. Absent that, we will gradually slide back into old-style drug war policies and approaches.

​ Orange County Register 

How acting as an unpaid family caregiver affects those who do the work

• March 2, 2025

Last week, we discussed National Caregivers Day, honoring caregivers who provide physical and emotional support to those who need it most. Our focus was on unpaid family caregivers, which might be a spouse, partner, daughter or son. This week, we continue that focus and conversation. 

More than one in five adults — a total of 53 million adult Americans — are unpaid family caregivers, according to a report from AARP and the National Alliance for Caregiving. Shorter hospital stays, limited discharge planning and expansion of home care technology have placed greater responsibility on family caregivers. Given the convergence of these changes plus increased longevity, it seems timely to address their impact.

Impact on health. When comparing non-caregivers to caregivers, the latter have more of everything. Anywhere from 40 to 70 percent suffer from depression. This group is more likely to experience anxiety disorders, substance abuse or dependence and chronic disease. We know family caregivers experience a high level of stress. Consequently, they are at greater risk for high blood pressure and heart disease. And with chronic stress, they may be at greater risk for cognitive decline including loss of short-term memory. Caregivers have more physical ailments than non-caregivers such as acid reflux, headaches and pain and have an increased tendency to develop serious illness. Obesity also becomes a problem. Unfortunately, caregivers often ignore their own medical checkups; one in five female caregivers surveyed had their mammograms less often. In general, when it comes to physical health, women do worse than their male counterparts.

Furthermore, caregivers often have diminished immune response which leads to frequent infections and increased risk of cancer. Despite poor health, more than one-third of family caregivers continue to provide intense care to others, putting their own health in danger.   

Impact on finances. On average, the uncompensated expense of family caregiving is more than $7,000 a year. These expenses include costs of housing, healthcare and transportation. Almost half of these caregivers indicated they had to withdraw money from saving accounts, their retirement nest eggs, take on debt or lessen their retirement contributions, according to the Family Caregiver Alliance. These actions can have a severe impact on one’s lifetime earnings, savings, Social Security benefits and retirement readiness. According to a study by TIAA and the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, caregivers have lower levels of financial assets and higher levels of debt compared to those who don’t care for loved ones. One in four caregivers have less than $1,000 in savings and investments; for non-caregivers, it’s closer to one in seven. And again, family caregiving costs interfere with self-care. Women caregivers are twice as likely to avoid filling a prescription because of the cost when compared to non-caregivers. 

Impact on employers. Caregiving affects employers. Almost three-quarters of the 53 million caregivers continue to work. Since caregiving responsibilities often occur during business hours, employees frequently find they need to set up appointments, consult with doctors, deal with emergencies and coordinate care as well as serving as an advocate – all while working. As a result over half go in late, leave early or take time off. Others have to reduce their hours, take a leave of absence, turn down promotions, give up work or retire early. These distractions may lead to less engaged employees affecting the quality of their work. Caregiving can cost employers $6,410 per employee, per year in productivity loss. Furthermore, unhealthy caregivers increase employers’ healthcare expenses.

All is not lost. A Harvard report noted that employers who offered caregiver benefits through a “care concierge” service that connects caregivers to planning, administrative, and support services reap the benefits. These employers reduced absenteeism up to 50 percent and achieved a return on their investment (ROI) of up to 72 percent. 

The Upside. Again, all is not lost. A survey by the National Opinion Research Center found that 83 percent of caregivers viewed their caregiving experience as positive. Benefits include the opportunity to deepen and strengthen relationships with loved ones.  Caregivers felt good about themselves, knowing they were needed and that their role gave meaning to their lives. Other benefits to the caregiver included increased companionship, love and affection as well as experiencing a sense of pride and purpose. Note: Both positive and negative experiences can occur simultaneously.

At some time, columns on caregiving are likely to become personal. To quote Rosalynn Carter: “There are only four kinds of people in the world: those who have been caregivers, those who are currently caregivers, those who will be caregivers and those who will need caregivers. 

Stay well, everyone, and, of course, be kind. 

Helen Dennis is a nationally recognized leader on issues of aging and the new retirement with academic, corporate and nonprofit experience. Contact Helen with your questions and comments at [email protected].  Visit Helen at HelenMdennis.com and follow her on facebook.com/SuccessfulAgingCommunity.

​ Orange County Register 

Why are our electric rates are so insane, and what can we do about it?

• March 2, 2025

The choices we’ve made have led to the pickle we’re in.

Our electric bills in California are the highest in the nation, save for poor Hawaii. Rates have doubled over the past decade. They’re about twice the national average and continue to rise, outpacing inflation. Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric and Pacific Gas & Electric rake in big profits — even as they seek rate hikes.

All this has sparked white-hot fury as officials scramble to divine how to fix things. But first it starts with blame: Whose fault is this?

Auditors lay some of it at the feet of weak watchdogs who just don’t — or can’t — bite (we’re talking about you, California Public Utilities Commission, and you, Public Advocate — the PUC branch that’s supposed to represent the little guy).

Meanwhile, the PUC and the investor-owned utilities say that hardening the grid against devastating wildfires has been terrifically expensive, as have forward-thinking programs such as goosing green energy adoption (particularly, subsidies to rooftop solar owners that subsequently penalize non-solar owners) and reducing bills for low-income Californians (the cost of which falls on the backs of ratepayers, rather than the state’s general fund, where most welfare programs live).

And consumer groups seethe over the “excessive profits” these investor-owned utilities are guaranteed by the very regulators overseeing them. Edison reported income of $1.6 billion for last year; SDG&E, $891 million; PG&E, $2.4 billion.

“It’s time for regulators and lawmakers to take decisive action to reduce these excessive profits and ensure that utilities are held accountable for their role in this affordability crisis,” said Lee Trotman, spokesperson for The Utility Reform Network, in a prepared statement. “Families should not have to choose between paying their electricity bills and other basic needs.”

Today, for-profit utility rates in California are 67% higher than those of public utilities, said Consumer Watchdog in a statement. For all the sometimes-conflicting explanations, there’s one thing everyone agrees on: Something has to give.

Profit

Surprise, folks: Electric companies don’t make money selling electricity. That’s essentially a pass-through cost.

Rather, they’re granted a (too?)-generous return on their capital investments (such as the aforementioned and terrifically expensive hardening of the system against wildfires). The PUC allows Edison, SDG&E and PG&E a 10%-plus return on these capital investments, which provides a perverse incentive for them to pursue the most expensive options rather than the least expensive options, critics charge. And ratepayers foot the bills for it.

So on Thursday, Feb. 27, California’s Little Hoover Commission began a series of hearings examining the systemic bugs and how to fix them, which we’ll be following for the next couple months.

“This sharp increase in electricity rates is not mainly due to the cost of energy, infrastructure, or higher energy use,” Little Hoover said in its backgrounder for the hearings. “Instead, California’s rising electricity rates are primarily due to the added costs of ‘ratepayer-funded programs’ …. These programs, which substantially increase consumers’ monthly bills, go beyond the basic costs of generating and delivering electricity and aim to achieve other goals, including supporting renewable energy adoption, improving energy efficiency, promoting electrification, enhancing energy reliability, providing energy subsidies to low-income households and reducing wildfire risks.”

These programs comprise a stunning third of what the utilities collect from customers. They also advance social equity and clean energy goals.

“This has led to an urgent policy dilemma: Should the state continue to use electricity rates as a lever to pursue goals that many Californians would regard as positive, or, given increasing concerns about the affordability of life in our state, should policymakers instead emphasize lowering electricity costs?” the Commission asked

Good questions. Little Hoover seeks to answer them in the hearings: Are green energy and affordable energy compatible? Should everyone pay the same rate for electricity, regardless of income? Should subsidies for low-income people come from the state’s general fund rather than from other ratepayers? Is there sufficient oversight of electricity rates and programs from the regulators?

The state auditor politely, but damningly, addressed the last question back in 2023. The answer was “no.”

The PUC and Public Advocate lack robust processes to verify utilities’ cost claims and rate increase justifications, the auditor said. They fail to adequately review accounts that track billions in utility spending. They don’t clearly communicate the reasons for rate hikes to customers. And utilities sometimes exceed their authorized rates of return, revealing inefficiencies in cost forecasting and a need for greater scrutiny of utility spending.

Villain: Solar?

The CPUC understands affordability is an issue and says it works hard to keep rates reasonable. In a recent report to the governor, it summed up things this way:

“Inequitable rate structures and the need for unprecedented climate impact related investments have created a perfect storm driving electricity rate increases,” it said. “In addition to creating financial hardship, continued rate inflation will put stress on meeting the state’s climate goals. Electrifying the transportation, building and industrial sectors are critical decarbonization strategies that become increasingly difficult with every increase in electricity rates.”

Why are rates so high? Let’s start with the one sure to cause the most fury: rooftop solar.

Rooftop solar owners export excess energy to the grid during the day. The three investor-owned utilities pay rooftop solar owners three to four times as much for that power as they pay for renewables sourced from elsewhere. That results in a huge cost — between $4 billion and $8.5 billion, depending on who you ask (and zero if you ask the rooftop solar industry, which says the value of the infrastructure that hasn’t had to be built because of rooftop solar has saved more than what’s spent).

The vast majority of industrial, commercial and residential customers in California don’t have solar panels, but end up paying for the 15% of folks who do, experts and officials said.

That cost shift comprises a startling 21% to 27% of residential bills, the PUC said, and generally flows from less-wealthy households (that don’t own homes and can’t have rooftop solar systems) to more wealthy households (that do own homes and can afford rooftop solar systems).

You may recall that the CPUC tried mightily to scale back this cost shift, but it was political poison that died at the governor’s own urging. It did manage some change: New solar system owners will get less generous payments for their solar energy, but those older systems will continue to be subsidized to the tune of some $8 billion a year for many years to come.

“The cost shift is going to continue to rise. You have to ask yourself, is it fair?” Matthew Freedman, attorney with TURN, told the Commission. “Is it fair to pass on significant costs to all customers, when those with solar tend to be wealthier?”

Other cost drivers include programs mandated by the state telling utilities to offer programs to help customers be efficient and save money. Those cost some $2 billion to $2.5 billion a year, but only half is spent on programs proven to be cost-effective, the Little Hoover report said.

Then there are subsidies for low-income customers. That shifts about $1.75 billion to other customers — mostly industrial and commercial, not residential, customers. If you bemoan the residential rates that are about double the national average, consider that rates for industry and business here are almost three times higher than the national average.

Throw in long-term contracts for renewable energy that were locked in years ago, when that energy was more expensive, and you’re talking many billions of dollars a year.

The big picture is important here, Severin Borenstein, faculty director at UC Berkeley’s Haas Energy Institute, told the Little Hoover Commission. Total revenue for the three utility companies was $60 billion in 2024. A nip here and tuck there aren’t going to make a dent.

“The only way we’re going to crank down on the cost side is by better regulations and better funding of the regulator,” said Borenstein.

What, exactly?

Reduce operating expenses, lower capital costs, phase out programs and revise subsidies and rate structures, the Public Advocate, PUC and other experts said.

Legislators can change how big, expensive infrastructure projects are financed, said TURN’s Freedman. While the return rate for the utilities is about 10%, that’s an after-tax number, so they’re actually collecting about 14%, he said.

Public financing, meanwhile, can be had at an interest rate of some 4% to 5%, potentially reducing those costs by up to half, Freedman told the Commission. Savings up to $3 billion a year are possible, he said, and studies are underway in the Legislature to explore this approach.

Also: lowering the guaranteed rate of return for the utilities; tying rate increases to inflation; exploring other funding sources for wildfire mitigation, such as federal funding; and scaling back subsidies, which will not please rooftop solar owners.

That might mean shortening the length of time that older rooftop systems are guaranteed high credits (currently 20 years); establishing a “grid benefits charge” for solar customers, who use the grid to import and export energy but don’t pay a full share of system costs; and funding solar subsidies from some public pocket rather than from the pockets of other electricity customers; and bill reductions for low-income folks could move to the state’s general fund as well.

Decoupling grid upkeep costs from electricity rates is important to fairness: After a wildly contentious proposal to tie grid upkeep charges to income, the CPUC adopted a flat $24 monthly charge for most households, and a $12 charge for low-income customers. That’ll reduce the cost of power some 15% to 20%, but most customers’ bills are expected to be about the same. That’ll kick in in another year or so.

But whatever the CPUC decides to do, it must exercise much greater scrutiny than it’s exercising now, the experts said.

“I don’t blame the CPUC for this — it’s massively understaffed and undercompensated,” said Berkeley’s Borenstein. “When they get into these rate of return things, the utilities bring in world-class experts and they’re outgunned and outmanned…. The CPUC could be a much more high-functioning organization if it were better funded.”

Big risk

The utilities say they’re committed to building a safe, reliable, sustainable and climate-resilient energy system at the lowest possible cost for customers. They point out that, when it comes to their rate of return on infrastructure projects, they often come in well below the 10%-plus the CPUC allows.

In 2022, Edison’s return on equity was authorized at 10.3%, and its actual was 7.77%, said spokesman Jeff Monford. In 2023, it was authorized at 10.05%, and its actual was 4.63%.

The investor-owned utilities go to the capital markets to finance energy system investments rather than asking customers to provide upfront funding for the work, they said. The risk involved, especially with the wildfires as of late, is considerable. Could public financing do better? A reasonable return on investment is important to ensure the companies can continue to attract the capital needed to make these investments, and they said CPUC determines the return on equity through an open, transparent and public process.

They’re all working to stabilize customer bills, they said. At PG&E, combined residential gas and electric are essentially flat compared to the same time last year. “We continue to look for ways to reduce customer costs, including reducing our own operating and capital costs, and increasing efficiency of our work, which saved more than $1 billion last year,” a statement from the company said.

Edison’s Monford said the company understands that rising costs are a hardship, and it works to keep bills manageable. Demand for electricity is growing faster than it has in decades, though, while threats like extreme weather and cyber-attacks are becoming more frequent, significant and costly. Edison is investing in new technology to make the grid stronger and to clean up the energy supply, and it expects rate hikes to return to the more usual 2% to 3% over the next few years, back to pre-2020 levels, he said.

Hearings and studies at myriad levels of state government are in the works, and everyone seems to know that changes are afoot.

“This is one of the most controversial and contested subject areas we’ve had in a while,” said Pedro Nava, Commission chair. “It’s like talking to people who have different kinds of faith, different kinds of religion.”

When opening that electric bill, I certainly pray.

​ Orange County Register 

Despite his claims, Trump targets the media and chills speech

• March 2, 2025

SACRAMENTO—I was thrilled when the technological revolution pushed aside the old media gatekeepers and Americans could, finally, gain access to a treasure trove of information. After the internet came into its own, the mainstream media could no longer tell us what to think. We could read and publish stories that never saw the light of day. With a few keyboard strokes, the People could now watch legislative proceedings, access court documents and delve into academic reports.

I naively thought that a new dawn of truth telling was emerging. Sadly, that dawn often looks like the dark of night. I’d never want to go back to the old media days, but people now largely exist in their own information bubbles. No one can even agree on basic facts. Partisanship so severely distorts how we see the world that even the best reporting can’t compete with some cockamamie YouTube video offered by some basement-dwelling poseur.

Even the basic concept of free speech has become another truncheon in the nation’s ongoing battle between tribes. Each side claims to be its champion, but neither consistently supports such principles. Conservatives were rightly aghast when the Biden administration tried to muscle social-media companies into quashing alternative views about pandemic-related policies.

That wasn’t a violation of the First Amendment—a point with which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed given that social-media platforms are private entities. But it was tawdry, nonetheless. Shortly after his second inauguration, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that claimed to restore our free-speech protections. Nice, but Trump continues his attacks on free speech through a variety of disreputable strategies.

Multiple lawsuits he’s filed against media operations are “chilling attempts to convert Trump’s complaints about press coverage into causes of action are legally baseless and blatantly unconstitutional,” notes Reason’s Jacob Sullum. He used as an example Trump’s recent social-media post after MSNBC cancelled a TV show: “Fake News is an UNPARDONABLE SIN! The whole corrupt operation is nothing more than an illegal arm of the Democrat Party. They should be forced to pay vast sums of money for the damage they’ve done to our Country.”

Trump, who calls the media the “enemy of the people,” is all for a free press as long as it’s parroting his political line. He recently booted the Associated Press—the paragon of balanced, nuts-and-bolts reporting—from presidential events after it refused to start calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America, following our Chief Mapmaker’s childish edict. This is bullying.

The New York Times reported that the administration “would start handpicking which media outlets were allowed to participate in the presidential press pool, the small, rotating group of reporters who relay the president’s day-to-day activities to the public.” This is not just an assault on protocol, but a glaring attempt to punish outlets that don’t bend the knee. A California Assembly speaker once denied my reporting team press passes for dubious reasons. It’s hard to do one’s job as a journalist if the government denies you access to its activities.

Trump’s interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Ed Martin, recently threatened criminal investigations of members of Congress and the media who have criticized Elon Musk and his team of DOGE budget-cutters. It’s preposterous for prosecutors to treat feisty comments as “threats,” which is the justification used by Martin’s office. And, as a letter from various civil-rights groups points out, it is certainly not a crime “to identify individuals openly conducting government work that is of the utmost public concern.”

A Trump executive order relating to anti-Israel protests called on universities to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff.” It’s fine to deport visiting students who engage in violence and law-breaking—but the highly respected and non-ideological rights group, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), argues that this edict “would make universities monitor students’ constitutionally protected speech.”

There are plenty of other examples to belie MAGA’s boast that it champions free-speech absolutism. It clearly supports its own speech rights, but not its enemies’. But the bigger problem is that the administration’s continuing fusillade of distortions, threats and conspiracy theories makes it impossible for Americans to separate truth from fiction. By the way, this is the playbook used by the noxious dictatorships that Trump so admires.

“If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer,” wrote Hannah Arendt, who chronicled authoritarianism. “And a people that no longer can believe anything cannot make up its mind. It is deprived not only of its capacity to act but also of its capacity to think and to judge. And with such a people you can then do what you please.”

So this Trump approach isn’t just a war on the media, but a war on our ability to govern ourselves.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute and a member of the Southern California News Group editorial board. Write to him at [email protected].

​ Orange County Register 

Eaton fire could be first big test for wildfire fund created to keep utilities out of bankruptcy

• March 2, 2025

California’s Wildfire Fund, a state pool created six years ago to keep utilities out of bankruptcy if they are found responsible for massive property losses, could be headed into uncharted territory with the Eaton fire.

State lawmakers established the fund in 2019 after Pacific Gas & Electric filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the face of tens of billions of dollars in damages from a series of catastrophic fires triggered by the utility in Northern California, including the inferno that tore through the town of Paradise.

If Southern California Edison is found to have ignited the Eaton fire, which destroyed more than 9,400 structures and killed 17 people, the utility would be eligible to tap the state fund to avoid the same fate.

“This (Eaton) fire is going to be the first pressure test for the California Wildfire Fund,” predicted attorney Alexander Robertson, whose firm is suing SCE, alleging a power line sparked the fire. More than 40 such lawsuits have been filed against SCE in the Eaton fire since a video surfaced that implicated high-voltage lines in starting the blaze.

“Everyone is curious to see how this is going to work because we’ve never been here before,” Robertson said.

Asked whether SCE is considering using the fund, spokesperson Kathleen Dunleavy responded by email, “This is too early to speculate.”

$12 billion in liquid revenue

The state fund has $12 billion in liquid revenue but has been approved for up to $21 billion to help pay for damages from any wildfires sparked by its three investor-owned members: PG&E, SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric. The utilities’ shareholders are responsible for half of the $21 billion and ratepayers will be slowly charged the balance in their monthly bills through 2035.

The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is not eligible to tap into the wildfire fund because the publicly owned utility did not contribute to it and their ratepayers don’t pay into it. That means the LADWP would be on its own to cover any liability from a similar wildfire disaster if the utility was deemed at fault.

The wildfire fund, created by Assembly Bill 1054, is non-replenishing — that is, it cannot be refilled or replaced once used. It has been previously tapped for $250 million by PG&E in the aftermath of the 2021 Dixie fire in Northern California, but the fund has not faced the kind of potential liability as that presented by the Eaton fire.

Experts say damages from the Eaton fire, which devastated Altadena, could hit at least $10 billion, leaving a large chunk of the state fund vulnerable if Edison was found liable and sought reimbursement. A state investigation remains ongoing into the cause of the fire.

“The Eaton fire is likely to consume at least half of the fund and possibly more. It’s certainly the first fire where a large number of structures (were) lost,” said Michael Wara, a lawyer specializing in climate and energy policy at Stanford University and a former member of the panel that manages the wildfire fund, the California Catastrophe Response Council.

What about ‘next time’?

Wara and others said the question now looming is how well the fund could respond to future fires if its coffers are largely depleted.

“If you use up half or more, how confident can you be that there will be enough money for next time, if there is a next time?” Wara said.

Seth Hilton, an energy development partner at the Stoel Rives law firm, added: “This is what the wildfire fund was intended to address. We will see whether it will be able to weather this challenge.”

Ted Kury, director of energy studies at the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida, said the state Legislature could intervene to find a way to cover any shortfall. “That essentially means everybody is paying,” Kury said.

The California Earthquake Authority, which oversees the fund, added it has the ability to issue revenue bonds to achieve liquidity.

Why bankruptcy is bad

So why is the state trying so hard to keep utilities out of bankruptcy?

“The big problem with bankruptcies is that you spend a lot of time trying to figure out who gets paid from the company’s limited resources,” Kury said. “Figuring that out takes time, accountants, lawyers, and many other professionals, and they all cost money. Since the utility is a regulated entity with the right to recover all of their expenses through the rates they charge, any costs the utility incurs will ultimately be passed through to customers.”

While the fund could help SCE avoid bankruptcy, the utility could take a hit among investors if found to be liable for the Eaton fire.

In early February, credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s lowered its outlook on Edison International and SCE from “stable” to “negative,” citing the potential “material depletion” of the wildfire fund. By downgrading Edison’s outlook, S&P is forecasting a weaker financial performance.

Other exposure

Member utilities, if judged to be responsible for the damages, must pay the first $1 billion before they can seek money from the fund. Additionally, if the state Public Utilities Commission determines the utility acted “imprudently” in causing the fire, the utility could have to pay back up to $3.9 billion, Kury said. However, the utility might have to pay more if the commission finds it acted with willful disregard for the safety of others.

“That uncertainty is already going to have an impact on investors,” Kury said. “Investors are going to take that risk into account.”

Edison Chief Executive Officer Pedro Pizarro, in an earnings call with investors last week reported by Bloomberg, said SCE believes it “would make a good faith showing that its conduct with respect to its transmission facilities in the Eaton Canyon area was consistent with actions of a reasonable utility.”

​ Orange County Register 

Bibas family murders underscore that negotiating with Hamas is a moral travesty

• March 2, 2025

In most countries around the world, 8-year-old kids ask questions such as “why is the sky blue?” and “how do planes stay in the air?”

In Israel, 8-year-old kids ask questions such as “would it be better to be dead, or a hostage?” and “what happens if a missile hits a grave?”

Some kids, like Ariel and Kfir Bibas, won’t live long enough to ask those questions. 

The terror and unfathomable destruction that Hamas has inflicted on all Israelis is simply indescribable. Israelis are forever changed for the worse after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks, and the “deals” with Hamas that are on the table right now only further perpetrate the injustices done unto them. 

A microcosm of Hamas’ destruction and brutality was on display for the world to see when the outcome of the kidnapping of the Bibas family came to light last month.

During the terrorist attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas captured Yarden Bibas, Shiri Bibas, and their kids, 4-year-old Ariel and 9-month-old Kfir. As part of a hostage deal, Yarden was released alive after 483 days of captivity, but Shiri, Ariel, and Kfir were murdered. The IDF confirmed that “the terrorists did not shoot the two young boys — they killed them with their bare hands. Afterward, they committed horrific acts to cover up these atrocities.”

Not satisfied with murdering babies and toddlers in cold blood, Hamas staged a morbid ceremony to hand over their bodies. They proudly showed off their caskets on a stage, with a giant antisemitic poster in the back blaming Israel for the horrific outcome. They celebrated themselves as brutal murderers, holding the perpetration of indescribable cruelty as moral virtue. Meanwhile, Palestinian civilians gathered around to see the show, cheer the terrorists on, and show their “heroes” to their own children. 

The fate of the Bibas family serves as a microcosm of Hamas’ brutality and the support they get from Palestinian civilians. While some people have finally begun questioning whether negotiating with barbarians is even possible, others still believe that it’s a worthy goal. 

The reality is that there’s no negotiating with savages whose life goal is to kill as many Jews as possible. It is impossible to negotiate with irrational brutes who will shamelessly break agreements (a ceasefire deal was in place on Oct. 6, 2023) and, fundamentally, it’s a massive immorality to do so. Hamas and their many supporters don’t deserve any considerations, nor mercy, nor deserve to be built a “beautiful town” like the U.S. administration wants to do. 

Part of the problem with ceasefire deals is not only that they will be broken time and time again by Hamas and their supporters, but also that they are massively disproportionate—a fact that highlights the colossal moral difference between Hamas and Israel. In order to get what remained of the Bibas family back, Israel negotiated releasing 1000 Gazans, many of whom were living terrorists who had attacked Israel before, in exchange for 33 Israeli hostages, all peaceful people, some of whom were dead. Making deal with Hamas all but guarantees that they will continue taking hostages. It shows them that their strategy works. 

As evidenced by the very nature of Hamas, the recividism of the Gazans returned in the hostage deal in exchange for peaceful Israelis, and the past violation of ceasefire deals, continuing to go down the same route will only guarantee more bloodshed and terror for Israelis. Hamas will not change, no matter how many “deals” they commit to—it’s murdering Jews that they are after, and they won’t quit until they think they’ve killed enough of them (which is never). 

Hamas and their supporters are not terrorists because they’re poor, or “oppressed,” or because they demand a “better life” that they haven’t earned. They are ideologically motivated—they want to eliminate      Jews (and eventually the whole of Western civilization) from the face of the earth and impose their barbaric rule on the world. The Trump administration, along with Netanyahu, now wants to build “the riviera of the Middle East” in Gaza, and give Gazans “really good quality housing” after all that has happened and the popular support that Hamas received after October 7.

This is a massive injustice that rewards Hamas and Gazans for their unspeakable evil. While there are Palestinians who don’t support Hamas, a large number of them do. People aren’t determined— Palestinians have chosen to support Hamas. They’ve elected them to power and chosen to center their lives around murdering Jews and get joy out of it. Under what wicked conception of justice do they deserve to be rewarded for that?

Striking ceasefire deals and pushing for the construction of developments in the Gaza region may be seen as politically advantageous by some, but in reality it’s unspeakably unjust, it’s humiliating to Israelis and a horrible mistake in the long-run, when Hamas and their supporters continue to try to kill Israelis. These deals will only allow them to draft their plans poolside while drinking margaritas in a “beautiful” resort.

The only way to morally and definitively end the war is to uproot the evil of Hamas for good. The only justification for trading terrorists for hostages is to make sure Hamas doesn’t exist long enough to take hostages ever again. Obliterating Hamas is the only way to bring justice to Israelis, and to however many Palestinians don’t agree with Hamas and want to live peaceful lives. October 7 happened because Hamas wasn’t eliminated years ago. History is simply repeating itself now. If Israel had had the moral courage to destroy Hamas earlier (and had been encouraged by the U.S. to do so), the Bibas family would still be alive and thousands of Israelis wouldn’t be living in terror. Kids wouldn’t be wondering if it’s best to die or to be a hostage.

To prevent another Oct. 7 and to guarantee that no more kids grow up living in terror, Hamas must be destroyed once and for all.

Agustina Vergara Cid is a Young Voices contributor. You can follow her on X at @agustinavcid

​ Orange County Register