If conservative Californians didn't think the sweep of statewide offices by progressive Democrats in 2010 wasn't bad enough, yesterday was worse.
For all practical purposes, the state of California voted to become France + Greece - a Euro-statist entity that has decided to accelerate down the path of fiscal irresponsibility in the name of 'social justice' and 'fairness'.
California has been heading down this path pretty much since Jerry Brown's first term as Governor in 1975. The recall of Grey Davis in 2003 did little to halt the embracing of the progressive statist agenda - and California seems to be right back at the forefront the country in terms of the sense of entitlement, embracing 'social justice', and the fallacy of government enforced 'fairness'.
Despite running $16-$25 billion annual deficits, government spending running 30% more today than it did in 2003, and the size and scope of government also being nearly a third larger than it was a decade ago, a majority of Californians not only embraced Proposition 30 - advertised as a tax increase on the rich for the benefit of education - but appears to have provided a super-majority of progressive votes in the State Senate and Assembly which permits the Legislature to pass tax increases without requiring a single Republican vote.
The two-thirds majority requirement for tax increases has vexed the progressives for years. They blamed the economic challenges of the state on inadequate revenues caused by not getting needed tax increases - while ignoring the effects of increased government spending and ever increasing 'paybacks' to the public sector unions in the guise of jobs, wages, benefits, and pensions.
The lock has been taken off the cookie jar - and a ladder has been conveniently placed nearby to facilitate access to that cookie jar.
Governor Brown, faced with $16B to $25B in annual budget deficits [and this is before the $100 billion boondoggle known as high speed rail], and seeking to increase revenues, embarked on the farce known as Proposition 30. The goal of Prop 30 - to raise $8.5 billion in additional revenues for the state coffers to offset the current annual budget deficit. In fact, not only would it offset a deficit double the size of the expected revenue increase - it would also restore $6 billion in funding to education - funding the state pulled back because it was more important to use those funds to reward public sector unions and their workers than to use for students.
How would these revenues be raised? Why, mainly on the backs of the 'wealthy' - as well as a 0.5% increase in the nation's largest state sales tax [which is paid by everyone].
If Prop 30 wouldn't get passed - the Governor promised not to cut redundant government programs and agencies, not cut government staffing and overreach, not cut government salaries, pensions, and benefits - but cut further funds to the school districts in the state - and close all schools 3 weeks earlier.
Yes, we were extorted to pass Prop 30 or else the school-aged children in the state would get it. Nearly 60% of the State decided to vote to pay the bill - because we were told it's only affecting the 'wealthy'.
But since Prop 30 isn't enough to really address the size and scope of the state's fiscal irresponsibility- more 'revenues' will be needed. Prop 39 - a new tax on multistate businesses operating in CA was also passed - this is 'promised' to raise another $1 billion in new revenues. But we're still short - so we're likely to see this fiscal year an effort to end Prop 13 - and the cap it imposes on property taxes as well as more income tax increases and fee increases.
Who will stop Excremento? The voter no longer has a recourse as the fiscal conservatives are well outnumbered in CA. In fact, the only remaining course for many in the middle class and upper middle class who will be the next tax targets is to flee the state for one of the few remaining red states that are not embracing progressivism, entitlementism, or statism.
Over the last five years - California has lost several million of the middle class / upper middle class to other states - as well as thousands of businesses. The tax base has shrunk because those coming into California are immigrants and generally low income people. Tax revenues shrink - increasing the pressure for more revenues - which drives more people out - shrinking tax revenues.
California owes more than any other state in the union. It's debt service costs are the highest of any state. It has the most resources, but between environmentalism and excessive regulations / fees, they are far underdeveloped. But it can still borrow money. It can still cook the fiscal books. It can now pass even more taxes, oops, I'm sorry, revenue enhancement plans. And if all else fails - it can get a bail out from the US government - just like GM, Chrysler, AIG, and Goldman Sachs.
Where's the downside?
There is none - California has become Greece + France.
Isn't it ironic that it rushes down this path even as Greece + France are failing? But then reality doesn't come into play when people want stuff and things - including entitlements from the government. Traditional American values are becoming extinct within America - and California, once again, is leading the way.
Summary of California's Propositions -
Prop 30 - Tax increase on wealthy / state sales tax increase - Passed
Prop 31 - Reform of State Local Government Budgets - Rejected
Prop 32 - End Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction - Rejected
Prop 33 - Auto Insurance Rates based on Driver History - Rejected
Prop 34 - Repeal of Death Penalty - Rejected
Prop 35 - Increased Human Trafficking Penalties - Passed
Prop 36 - Weaken Three Strikes Law - Passed
Prop 37 - Food Labeling - Rejected
Prop 38 - Tax increase across the board - Rejected
Prop 39 - Multistate Business tax increase - Passed
Prop 40 - Accept gerrymandered boundaries - Passed
LA County Propositions
A - Advisory Vote - Keep County Assessor an Elected Position - Yes
B - Require condom use by porn actors - Yes
J - MTA Sales Tax Extension - Rejected
Measure J requires a 2/3rd majority to pass - it only got 64.72% of the vote - so it missed by just over 1.25%.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Los Angeles County, California Sample Ballot
With 4 days to go before Election Day, it's time to take a look at my sample ballot - for Los Angeles County, California. We'll see the choices / considerations that need to be made - and I'll offer my recommendations on not only the candidates - but also the numerous ballot measures that have become so commonplace in California elections.
As regular readers know, I see California as being in a major fiscal crisis - brought on primarily by years (decades?) of progressive political leadership, agendas, and policies. We have some of the highest state income taxes in country - at both the personal and corporate levels. The state government is bloated, inefficient, and filled with waste. It is also in the pocket of special interests ranging from environmentalists to public and private sector unions. If California would be a country, we would be in the top 10 in the world in terms of GDP - but we would also be very similar to Greece or Spain in terms of our debt, excessive government spending, and challenges.
Today, every single holder of an elected State-wide office is a Democrat - a progressive Democrat at that. Only a few Republican legislators and a two-thirds majority requirement on tax increases that is part of our State Constitution protects us from annual tax increases to try to bring revenues up to the level of our excessive spending. In a year where we have between a $16 billion and $20 billion budget deficit - our Governor wants to drive full speed ahead to spend between $66 billion and $120 billion on a high speed rail boondoggle that has no viable business plan or any private investors.
With that, let's look at the state wide ballot initiatives.
Proposition 30 - 'Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Initiative Constitutional Amendment'
This is Governor Brown's $8 billion tax increase - levied primarily on the 'wealthy' (except for an across the board .25 point state sales tax increase) that is to address a $16 billion (today) budget deficit - ensuring adequate funding for education and first responders across the state. If it doesn't pass, the Governor has promised an additional $5.5 billion cut in education funds, closure of state parks, and layoff's of first responders / prison guards in order to 'balance' the budget.
The Governor's approach is simply base extortion. It does nothing to repair the fundamental brokenness of the state or address our fiscal crisis. It just tries to kick the can down the road a few more years. It reflects the contempt the left / progressives / Democrats have to the voters and residents of California.
VOTE NO on PROP 30
Proposition 31 - 'State Budget, State and Local Government Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute'
This is an amendment to the State Constitution that establishes a 2 year state budget, sets rules for offsetting expenditures - and where the Governor needs to cut the budget during fiscal emergencies. Returns to local governments $200 million that the State appropriates for its budget challenges.
This places more and stricter controls on the state budget process and attempts to limit some of the games being played by the Governor and Legislation to address the fiscal crisis - including dipping their hands into the pockets of local governments. We need something to change - and this is as good of a first step as we can do at this time. Far more is needed, but that would mean voting out the progressives that run this State.
VOTE YES on Prop 31
Proposition 32 - 'Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates Initiative Statute'
This prohibits unions and corporations from using payroll deducted funds, including union dues, for political purposes. This is designed to end companies and unions from forcing payroll deductions from workers paychecks to fund political advocacy by the entity (company or union).
This is one of the most contentious propositions we face - and one that the unions, in particular the public sector unions, are spending over $60 million in adverts to prevent its passage. It will hit right at the power of the unions to buy the government - and protect workers / union members from having to fund political causes and candidates that they do not wish to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 32
Proposition 33 - 'Auto Insurance Companies - Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage Initiative Statute'
This amends a current law in California to allow auto insurance companies to set premium pricing based on whether the insured previously was insured with any other auto insurance carrier. It also allows drivers with previous coverage to receive a discount for having that coverage.
This is based on the calculation that those with auto insurance and maintain auto insurance coverage as required by state law - are more responsible drivers than those who do not have insurance or maintain continuous coverage. The left hates this because it ranks new drivers and immigrant drivers as higher risks and need to pay higher premiums.
VOTE YES on Prop 33
Proposition 34 - 'Death Penalty Initiative Statute'
This proposition repeals the death penalty in California and commutes the death sentences of over 700 who are on California's death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The proposition is being promoted by those who are anti-capital punishment. They cite the risk of false convictions as an added concern. They are also using a fiscal argument - saying that it will be less expensive to keep these convicts in general population than on the segregated death row.
Another factor to consider is that California, while having a large death row population, does not execute its death row population. The State Supreme Court is very progressive and anti-capital punishment. With the appeals and legal processes, it can easily be 20-30 years before a convict has run out of options and is cleared to stand for their execution.
We have far better technology and information to take all reasonable precautions to ensure we only convict the guilty. Once convicted, there are numerous appeals, new hearings, and new trials that take place before a convict would be executed. So the odds of an innocent person being convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit is pretty remote. Furthermore some crimes are so heinous that committing them means that the person who did so has eliminated their right to remain alive.
VOTE NO on Prop 34
Proposition 35 - 'Human Trafficking Penalties Initiative Statute'
This proposition increases prison sentences and fines for those convicted of engaging in human trafficking. In addition, those convicted have to register as sex offenders - and live under the limits and requirements of being registered sex offenders.
This should be a no-brainer to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 35
Proposition 36 - 'Three Strikes Law, Repeat Felony Offenders Penalties Initiative Statute'
This revises the current 'three strikes' law that imposes a life sentence on persons receiving the third felony conviction to only impose the life sentence when the third felony conviction is deemed serious or violent. Permits judges to re-sentence those convicted of a three strikes violation when the third felony was not serious or violent.
Today, DA's and Judges already have considerable leeway in not imposing a third strike life sentence if the felony committed was not serious or violent. Imposing it into law via the proposition will create more challenges and more limitations on this leeway. Evidence shows that those who commit repeated felonies will continue to do so - and the only real way to stop those repeat crimes is to incarcerate them for life. Keep the law as it is today.
VOTE NO on Prop 36
Proposition 37 - 'Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute'
This requires California establish a totally unique and California food labeling process that increases government control and regulation, increases costs on food producers, and offers little or now additional safety or viable information to protect the consumer. California already has regulated itself into a nightmare for companies to do business in the state - and this is just another major step deeper into that nightmare. Our gas is already among the most expensive in the 48 continental states - and this would go a long way to make our food among the most expensive in the 48 continental states.
VOTE NO on Prop 37
Proposition 38 - 'Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs Initiative Statute'
This is the alternative to Proposition 30 - with 2 main differences. First, the tax increases are spread across the board as opposed to being focused on just the 'wealthy'. Second it mandates all revenues from this tax increase is dedicated to K-12 education - and for the first four years - also for paying down the state deficit (actually slowing the growth in debt slightly - very slightly). Tax increase to be in effect for 12 years.
As with Prop 30 it is fundamentally flawed because of how its structured and the 'out' to be used to 'pay down' the state debt - which in other words is being fired into the maw of the State's general fund. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the state when it comes to both fiscal structure and the broken education system which rewards only unions / administrators and not teachers, and clearly not students.
VOTE NO on Prop 38
Proposition 39 - ' Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding Initiative Statute'
The 'justification' of this - to permit California to collect corporate taxes from companies based on the sales that they do in California even if they do not have a physical presence in California - and then allocate the revenues from these taxes strictly to clean energy / environmental projects over the next 5 years.
This is a blatant reach outside the state to collect taxes and punish businesses for doing business in California. It will increase costs for California's consumers and discourage business being conducted in California. Then the revenues raised will be tossed into the 'Clean Energy' and / or 'Environmental' project black hole boondoggles. Pushing 'clean energy' has contributed to California having some of the nation's highest energy costs and the excessive focus on environmentalism is leaving us energy poor and has devastated the state's agriculture industry.
VOTE NO on Prop 39
Proposition 40 - 'Redistricting State Senate Districts Referendum'
In November 2008, voters of California passed 'The Voters First Act', Prop 11, which took away the responsibility of redistricting state districts from the legislature and put it into the arms of a 14 member commission comprising of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 from neither major party. In 2010, the scope of the commission was expanded to also include US Congressional Districts in the state.
While on paper, this is supposed to be as fair / unbiased process as possible, for many, it appears as if this has been about as unbiased as redistricting being done by a Legislature that is 60% Democrat. During the public hearing process, organized efforts by the CA Democrat Party and their key allies, including the public sector unions, to manipulate the redistricting process.
This vote is to accept (Yes) the latest redistricting map or to reject (No) the map. If the map is rejected, the districts will be reviewed and adjusted by officials supervised by the CA Supreme Court.
While not as bad as a legislative redistricting, the process continued to gerrymander district boundaries for political purposes. I believe the voters need to send a message to the commission that this was intended for significant reform - and in delivering that, they failed.
VOTE NO on Prop 40
LA County Measure - A
This is an advisory vote asking voters if we should change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the position of the Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position. Today, this is an elected position - and the current incumbent is currently being held in prison, unable to make bail, charged with corruption - taking bribes to reduce the tax liabilities of individuals and companies.
An appointed County Assessor would be directly accountable to the LA County Board of Supervisors - and able to be dismissed for inability to execute the job or malfeasance.
VOTE YES on Measure A
LA County Measure - B
This proposes a new County ordinance targeting the adult film industry which is very active in LA County. The ordinance will require producers to obtain a County Health Permit, performers to use condoms, and expand the testing / education of performers on STD's - including regular reporting of results of regular health tests.
The adult film industry is already regulated - with performers undergoing regular monthly testing to ensure they do not have STD's or AID's. The proposal takes the regulations to another level in an effort to protect the performers. Yet, there is not a major problem with the existing regulations and processes. With that, do we really need to expand the existing regulations, oversight, and enforcement? Is that really the proper role of government?
It is only on this expansion of government, apparently above and beyond regulations and oversight that currently work, that I come down on opposing this measure. If the current regulations and oversight were not working - if there were major reported health issues within this industry and with the performers that risked those outside the industry - then I could support this.
VOTE NO on Measure B
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Accelerating Traffic Relief and Job Creation - Measure J
This is a measure offered by the state chartered regional planning agency and public transportation operating agency for the County of Los Angeles which calls for a extension of the expiring .5% sales tax increase for an additional 30 years to fund transportation initiatives in the County. Among the key transportation initiatives targeted, the $3-5B initiative to expand the LA Subway system 'to the sea' - from Downtown LA to the Santa Monica beach area as well as continuing to subsidize and keep fares for the LA Metro / Metrolink from increasing.
Little of the new initiatives will generate the promised benefits - and they are very LA centric as opposed to addressing transportation needs throughout Los Angeles County. The current Metro system does not have a direct connection to Los Angeles International Airport - but building a subway 'to the sea' is the primary focus. It takes over an hour on a commuter train to travel 35 miles into LA - but we aren't investing in better trackage or signals to improve the speed / usefulness while maintaining fares?
This agency has limited accountability to the people / taxpayer and is focusing on the wrong priorities. We should not extend this tax increase until they become more accountable and refocus their attention on real improvements as opposed to progressive 'make work' efforts.
VOTE NO on Measure J
In terms of the individual races - here are my endorsements.
President and Vice President
The current Administration has a record of failure, incompetence, and fecklessness that has been unseen in this country since the Carter Administration. The policies and agenda of the Obama Administration are preventing the economy from entering a robust recovery. They have also increased the divides within this country - pitting 'us vs. them' in far too many areas. It's beyond irresponsible to spend at levels that generate >$1T annual deficits and add over $6 trillion to the national debt. The foreign and national security policy of the current Administration have weakened the US and emboldened our enemies.
VOTE for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan
United States Senator
Democrat Diane Feinstein is seeking her fourth full term as the State's senior Senator. In the Senate, she is a reliable progressive / liberal vote - and is one of the most liberal members in the Senate. Her primary role in the Senate is to be a reliable progressive soldier. She is arrogant and feckless. Throughout the current race, she has refused to engage her opponent in a single debate - probably knowing that in that format, she would be exposed for what she is. California needs a Senator who will work for all of the people of the state, not just the special interests including the unions and illegal immigrants.
VOTE for Elizabeth Emken
United States Representative
I'm in the 25th Congressional District, where we are represented by Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon, who is currently the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. While Buck has faced some additional challenges in the past several years over some minor local issues, he remains a strong conservative and advocate for the district as well as the members of the Armed Forces. He understands what we need to do - where we need to go - and shares the conservative vision to obtain those goals. He deserves another term in office.
VOTE for Howard 'Buck' McKeon
State Senator
I'm in the 27th State Senatorial District - one that has changed because of redistricting. Todd Zink, the Republican candidate, is a decorated Marine Corps officer and Deputy District Attorney. He is a conservative and has conservative vision for California based around fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and restoring the Golden State from the damage caused by decades of progressive leadership.
The state needs a real change - and voting for conservative Republicans is how we start that change process. Plus, we need to prevent the Democrats from passing a two-thirds majority in the Legislature. If we fail, then tax and spend will expand / continue.
VOTE for Todd Zink
Member of the State Assembly
This is a 38th District open seat - vacated by Cameron Smyth (R) who was term-limited out of office. The choices are similar to the other individual races - a choice between a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat with completely different visions for the future direction of California. In this race, the lesser know Democrat has embraced a highly negative campaign - targeting the GOP candidate who has formerly worked for Buck McKeon and ran his own political consulting company. Scott Wilk, the GOP candidate, defeated 2 other Republican challengers in a very contentious race - but has the skills and vision to represent the 38th District in Sacramento and try to promote change in California.
VOTE for Scott Wilk
Los Angeles County District Attorney
This is the sole County race for unincorporated LA County. The Democrat candidate is the current Chief Deputy DA, Jackie Lacey. The other is Alan Jackson, a gang homicide prosecutor, the Republican candidate. Lacey, would, if elected, become the first woman and first African-American to hold the office of LA County DA. Both are more similar in their approach than different - for example, both support capital punishment. While Lacey is a senior member in the DA's office, Jackson has a track record of successful high-profile prosecutions.
I think that with her experience and some of the intangibles around Jackie Lacy, she would be the better District Attorney - and she edges out Alan Jackson in my mind...but it's really close - because she does support several propositions that I do oppose (like softening three strikes). The current DA, Steve Cooley, has endorsed her.
VOTE for Jackie Lacey
That is my look at the ballot that I am facing on Tuesday. I see both the Country and the State moving in the wrong direction - and I am strongly advocating for changes in that direction. I am also seeking to reduce the size and influence of government - and voting accordingly.
Please get out and vote on Tuesday, November 6.
As regular readers know, I see California as being in a major fiscal crisis - brought on primarily by years (decades?) of progressive political leadership, agendas, and policies. We have some of the highest state income taxes in country - at both the personal and corporate levels. The state government is bloated, inefficient, and filled with waste. It is also in the pocket of special interests ranging from environmentalists to public and private sector unions. If California would be a country, we would be in the top 10 in the world in terms of GDP - but we would also be very similar to Greece or Spain in terms of our debt, excessive government spending, and challenges.
Today, every single holder of an elected State-wide office is a Democrat - a progressive Democrat at that. Only a few Republican legislators and a two-thirds majority requirement on tax increases that is part of our State Constitution protects us from annual tax increases to try to bring revenues up to the level of our excessive spending. In a year where we have between a $16 billion and $20 billion budget deficit - our Governor wants to drive full speed ahead to spend between $66 billion and $120 billion on a high speed rail boondoggle that has no viable business plan or any private investors.
With that, let's look at the state wide ballot initiatives.
Proposition 30 - 'Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding, Initiative Constitutional Amendment'
This is Governor Brown's $8 billion tax increase - levied primarily on the 'wealthy' (except for an across the board .25 point state sales tax increase) that is to address a $16 billion (today) budget deficit - ensuring adequate funding for education and first responders across the state. If it doesn't pass, the Governor has promised an additional $5.5 billion cut in education funds, closure of state parks, and layoff's of first responders / prison guards in order to 'balance' the budget.
The Governor's approach is simply base extortion. It does nothing to repair the fundamental brokenness of the state or address our fiscal crisis. It just tries to kick the can down the road a few more years. It reflects the contempt the left / progressives / Democrats have to the voters and residents of California.
VOTE NO on PROP 30
Proposition 31 - 'State Budget, State and Local Government Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute'
This is an amendment to the State Constitution that establishes a 2 year state budget, sets rules for offsetting expenditures - and where the Governor needs to cut the budget during fiscal emergencies. Returns to local governments $200 million that the State appropriates for its budget challenges.
This places more and stricter controls on the state budget process and attempts to limit some of the games being played by the Governor and Legislation to address the fiscal crisis - including dipping their hands into the pockets of local governments. We need something to change - and this is as good of a first step as we can do at this time. Far more is needed, but that would mean voting out the progressives that run this State.
VOTE YES on Prop 31
Proposition 32 - 'Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction, Contributions to Candidates Initiative Statute'
This prohibits unions and corporations from using payroll deducted funds, including union dues, for political purposes. This is designed to end companies and unions from forcing payroll deductions from workers paychecks to fund political advocacy by the entity (company or union).
This is one of the most contentious propositions we face - and one that the unions, in particular the public sector unions, are spending over $60 million in adverts to prevent its passage. It will hit right at the power of the unions to buy the government - and protect workers / union members from having to fund political causes and candidates that they do not wish to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 32
Proposition 33 - 'Auto Insurance Companies - Prices based on Driver's History of Insurance Coverage Initiative Statute'
This amends a current law in California to allow auto insurance companies to set premium pricing based on whether the insured previously was insured with any other auto insurance carrier. It also allows drivers with previous coverage to receive a discount for having that coverage.
This is based on the calculation that those with auto insurance and maintain auto insurance coverage as required by state law - are more responsible drivers than those who do not have insurance or maintain continuous coverage. The left hates this because it ranks new drivers and immigrant drivers as higher risks and need to pay higher premiums.
VOTE YES on Prop 33
Proposition 34 - 'Death Penalty Initiative Statute'
This proposition repeals the death penalty in California and commutes the death sentences of over 700 who are on California's death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
The proposition is being promoted by those who are anti-capital punishment. They cite the risk of false convictions as an added concern. They are also using a fiscal argument - saying that it will be less expensive to keep these convicts in general population than on the segregated death row.
Another factor to consider is that California, while having a large death row population, does not execute its death row population. The State Supreme Court is very progressive and anti-capital punishment. With the appeals and legal processes, it can easily be 20-30 years before a convict has run out of options and is cleared to stand for their execution.
We have far better technology and information to take all reasonable precautions to ensure we only convict the guilty. Once convicted, there are numerous appeals, new hearings, and new trials that take place before a convict would be executed. So the odds of an innocent person being convicted and executed for a crime they didn't commit is pretty remote. Furthermore some crimes are so heinous that committing them means that the person who did so has eliminated their right to remain alive.
VOTE NO on Prop 34
Proposition 35 - 'Human Trafficking Penalties Initiative Statute'
This proposition increases prison sentences and fines for those convicted of engaging in human trafficking. In addition, those convicted have to register as sex offenders - and live under the limits and requirements of being registered sex offenders.
This should be a no-brainer to support.
VOTE YES on Prop 35
Proposition 36 - 'Three Strikes Law, Repeat Felony Offenders Penalties Initiative Statute'
This revises the current 'three strikes' law that imposes a life sentence on persons receiving the third felony conviction to only impose the life sentence when the third felony conviction is deemed serious or violent. Permits judges to re-sentence those convicted of a three strikes violation when the third felony was not serious or violent.
Today, DA's and Judges already have considerable leeway in not imposing a third strike life sentence if the felony committed was not serious or violent. Imposing it into law via the proposition will create more challenges and more limitations on this leeway. Evidence shows that those who commit repeated felonies will continue to do so - and the only real way to stop those repeat crimes is to incarcerate them for life. Keep the law as it is today.
VOTE NO on Prop 36
Proposition 37 - 'Genetically Engineered Foods Labeling Initiative Statute'
This requires California establish a totally unique and California food labeling process that increases government control and regulation, increases costs on food producers, and offers little or now additional safety or viable information to protect the consumer. California already has regulated itself into a nightmare for companies to do business in the state - and this is just another major step deeper into that nightmare. Our gas is already among the most expensive in the 48 continental states - and this would go a long way to make our food among the most expensive in the 48 continental states.
VOTE NO on Prop 37
Proposition 38 - 'Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs Initiative Statute'
This is the alternative to Proposition 30 - with 2 main differences. First, the tax increases are spread across the board as opposed to being focused on just the 'wealthy'. Second it mandates all revenues from this tax increase is dedicated to K-12 education - and for the first four years - also for paying down the state deficit (actually slowing the growth in debt slightly - very slightly). Tax increase to be in effect for 12 years.
As with Prop 30 it is fundamentally flawed because of how its structured and the 'out' to be used to 'pay down' the state debt - which in other words is being fired into the maw of the State's general fund. It does nothing to address the fundamental problems with the state when it comes to both fiscal structure and the broken education system which rewards only unions / administrators and not teachers, and clearly not students.
VOTE NO on Prop 38
Proposition 39 - ' Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding Initiative Statute'
The 'justification' of this - to permit California to collect corporate taxes from companies based on the sales that they do in California even if they do not have a physical presence in California - and then allocate the revenues from these taxes strictly to clean energy / environmental projects over the next 5 years.
This is a blatant reach outside the state to collect taxes and punish businesses for doing business in California. It will increase costs for California's consumers and discourage business being conducted in California. Then the revenues raised will be tossed into the 'Clean Energy' and / or 'Environmental' project black hole boondoggles. Pushing 'clean energy' has contributed to California having some of the nation's highest energy costs and the excessive focus on environmentalism is leaving us energy poor and has devastated the state's agriculture industry.
VOTE NO on Prop 39
Proposition 40 - 'Redistricting State Senate Districts Referendum'
In November 2008, voters of California passed 'The Voters First Act', Prop 11, which took away the responsibility of redistricting state districts from the legislature and put it into the arms of a 14 member commission comprising of 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans, and 4 from neither major party. In 2010, the scope of the commission was expanded to also include US Congressional Districts in the state.
While on paper, this is supposed to be as fair / unbiased process as possible, for many, it appears as if this has been about as unbiased as redistricting being done by a Legislature that is 60% Democrat. During the public hearing process, organized efforts by the CA Democrat Party and their key allies, including the public sector unions, to manipulate the redistricting process.
This vote is to accept (Yes) the latest redistricting map or to reject (No) the map. If the map is rejected, the districts will be reviewed and adjusted by officials supervised by the CA Supreme Court.
While not as bad as a legislative redistricting, the process continued to gerrymander district boundaries for political purposes. I believe the voters need to send a message to the commission that this was intended for significant reform - and in delivering that, they failed.
VOTE NO on Prop 40
LA County Measure - A
This is an advisory vote asking voters if we should change the California Constitution and the Los Angeles County Charter to make the position of the Los Angeles County Assessor an appointed position instead of an elected position. Today, this is an elected position - and the current incumbent is currently being held in prison, unable to make bail, charged with corruption - taking bribes to reduce the tax liabilities of individuals and companies.
An appointed County Assessor would be directly accountable to the LA County Board of Supervisors - and able to be dismissed for inability to execute the job or malfeasance.
VOTE YES on Measure A
LA County Measure - B
This proposes a new County ordinance targeting the adult film industry which is very active in LA County. The ordinance will require producers to obtain a County Health Permit, performers to use condoms, and expand the testing / education of performers on STD's - including regular reporting of results of regular health tests.
The adult film industry is already regulated - with performers undergoing regular monthly testing to ensure they do not have STD's or AID's. The proposal takes the regulations to another level in an effort to protect the performers. Yet, there is not a major problem with the existing regulations and processes. With that, do we really need to expand the existing regulations, oversight, and enforcement? Is that really the proper role of government?
It is only on this expansion of government, apparently above and beyond regulations and oversight that currently work, that I come down on opposing this measure. If the current regulations and oversight were not working - if there were major reported health issues within this industry and with the performers that risked those outside the industry - then I could support this.
VOTE NO on Measure B
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority - Accelerating Traffic Relief and Job Creation - Measure J
This is a measure offered by the state chartered regional planning agency and public transportation operating agency for the County of Los Angeles which calls for a extension of the expiring .5% sales tax increase for an additional 30 years to fund transportation initiatives in the County. Among the key transportation initiatives targeted, the $3-5B initiative to expand the LA Subway system 'to the sea' - from Downtown LA to the Santa Monica beach area as well as continuing to subsidize and keep fares for the LA Metro / Metrolink from increasing.
Little of the new initiatives will generate the promised benefits - and they are very LA centric as opposed to addressing transportation needs throughout Los Angeles County. The current Metro system does not have a direct connection to Los Angeles International Airport - but building a subway 'to the sea' is the primary focus. It takes over an hour on a commuter train to travel 35 miles into LA - but we aren't investing in better trackage or signals to improve the speed / usefulness while maintaining fares?
This agency has limited accountability to the people / taxpayer and is focusing on the wrong priorities. We should not extend this tax increase until they become more accountable and refocus their attention on real improvements as opposed to progressive 'make work' efforts.
VOTE NO on Measure J
In terms of the individual races - here are my endorsements.
President and Vice President
The current Administration has a record of failure, incompetence, and fecklessness that has been unseen in this country since the Carter Administration. The policies and agenda of the Obama Administration are preventing the economy from entering a robust recovery. They have also increased the divides within this country - pitting 'us vs. them' in far too many areas. It's beyond irresponsible to spend at levels that generate >$1T annual deficits and add over $6 trillion to the national debt. The foreign and national security policy of the current Administration have weakened the US and emboldened our enemies.
VOTE for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan
United States Senator
Democrat Diane Feinstein is seeking her fourth full term as the State's senior Senator. In the Senate, she is a reliable progressive / liberal vote - and is one of the most liberal members in the Senate. Her primary role in the Senate is to be a reliable progressive soldier. She is arrogant and feckless. Throughout the current race, she has refused to engage her opponent in a single debate - probably knowing that in that format, she would be exposed for what she is. California needs a Senator who will work for all of the people of the state, not just the special interests including the unions and illegal immigrants.
VOTE for Elizabeth Emken
United States Representative
I'm in the 25th Congressional District, where we are represented by Rep. Howard 'Buck' McKeon, who is currently the Chair of the House Armed Services Committee. While Buck has faced some additional challenges in the past several years over some minor local issues, he remains a strong conservative and advocate for the district as well as the members of the Armed Forces. He understands what we need to do - where we need to go - and shares the conservative vision to obtain those goals. He deserves another term in office.
VOTE for Howard 'Buck' McKeon
State Senator
I'm in the 27th State Senatorial District - one that has changed because of redistricting. Todd Zink, the Republican candidate, is a decorated Marine Corps officer and Deputy District Attorney. He is a conservative and has conservative vision for California based around fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and restoring the Golden State from the damage caused by decades of progressive leadership.
The state needs a real change - and voting for conservative Republicans is how we start that change process. Plus, we need to prevent the Democrats from passing a two-thirds majority in the Legislature. If we fail, then tax and spend will expand / continue.
VOTE for Todd Zink
Member of the State Assembly
This is a 38th District open seat - vacated by Cameron Smyth (R) who was term-limited out of office. The choices are similar to the other individual races - a choice between a conservative Republican and a progressive Democrat with completely different visions for the future direction of California. In this race, the lesser know Democrat has embraced a highly negative campaign - targeting the GOP candidate who has formerly worked for Buck McKeon and ran his own political consulting company. Scott Wilk, the GOP candidate, defeated 2 other Republican challengers in a very contentious race - but has the skills and vision to represent the 38th District in Sacramento and try to promote change in California.
VOTE for Scott Wilk
Los Angeles County District Attorney
This is the sole County race for unincorporated LA County. The Democrat candidate is the current Chief Deputy DA, Jackie Lacey. The other is Alan Jackson, a gang homicide prosecutor, the Republican candidate. Lacey, would, if elected, become the first woman and first African-American to hold the office of LA County DA. Both are more similar in their approach than different - for example, both support capital punishment. While Lacey is a senior member in the DA's office, Jackson has a track record of successful high-profile prosecutions.
I think that with her experience and some of the intangibles around Jackie Lacy, she would be the better District Attorney - and she edges out Alan Jackson in my mind...but it's really close - because she does support several propositions that I do oppose (like softening three strikes). The current DA, Steve Cooley, has endorsed her.
VOTE for Jackie Lacey
That is my look at the ballot that I am facing on Tuesday. I see both the Country and the State moving in the wrong direction - and I am strongly advocating for changes in that direction. I am also seeking to reduce the size and influence of government - and voting accordingly.
Please get out and vote on Tuesday, November 6.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
The Co-equal Fourth Branch of California Government
The Los Angeles Times today features, what is to me, a surprising article on the California Teacher's Association - the state's largest teacher union. One prominent Democrat says that the union views itself as 'the co-equal fourth branch of government'.
In my posts and commentary about the fiscal and political state of California, a frequent target is the power and influence of the public sector unions - including the teachers unions. These unions have had a seriously negative impact on the state of California - sharing the blame with the progressives that dominate the state government and legislature for our current fiscal challenges. These challenges are not being addressed. They are deepening - and the 'more of the same' ethically, fiscally, and intellectually dishonest approach to 'correct' these challenges have placed California in a death spiral.
I've cited that California needs the same bold acts of reform as those launched in another progressive state - a state that is turning 'red' because the people of that state have decided to stop 'more of the same' and enact changes. When Wisconsin elected Governor Scott Walker and a Republican controlled state house, they sent message that they did not want to become California.
The reforms enacted by Scott Walker and the GOP in Wisconsin targeting the public sector unions - limiting collective bargaining, ending the automatic withdrawal of union dues via payroll deduction, and the other steps to lessen the ability of unions to control government purse strings - has paid immediate real dividends for Wisconsin. School districts, once in fiscal straits because of collective bargaining agreements that only enriched the unions, now have more control over their fiscal circumstances. They're in the 'black' - and expanding their services to the students of their districts. The state and local governments are also retaking control of their spending - and deficits are becoming surpluses....while union membership numbers are collapsing as fast as their power.
That is the model that California and other progressive states need to implement - but seem to lack the will do so. But if more in California understand the real damage that is being done to all of us, in particular our students, by the California Teachers Association, perhaps we can find the will needed. This article in the LA Times, is, I think, a step in that direction....even if the LA Times didn't intend it to be.
Oh, and how did a deal finally get cut for the California budget?
The deal came when the elected Democrat leadership agreed to a provision that stated no matter how fiscally strapped a school district might be - it could not lay off any teachers during the fiscal year.
So where is California fiscally? Our budget deficit continues to soar - with Governor Brown's bet that the Facebook IPO would generate billions widely missing the mark and now even more so with state sales tax revenues being down 33.5% from what was estimated / projected in the state budget. The $9.6 billion cash deficit that existed on the June 30th is now $18 billion and growing.
The Golden State is no longer golden - and its time to realize why this is the case.
In my posts and commentary about the fiscal and political state of California, a frequent target is the power and influence of the public sector unions - including the teachers unions. These unions have had a seriously negative impact on the state of California - sharing the blame with the progressives that dominate the state government and legislature for our current fiscal challenges. These challenges are not being addressed. They are deepening - and the 'more of the same' ethically, fiscally, and intellectually dishonest approach to 'correct' these challenges have placed California in a death spiral.
I've cited that California needs the same bold acts of reform as those launched in another progressive state - a state that is turning 'red' because the people of that state have decided to stop 'more of the same' and enact changes. When Wisconsin elected Governor Scott Walker and a Republican controlled state house, they sent message that they did not want to become California.
The reforms enacted by Scott Walker and the GOP in Wisconsin targeting the public sector unions - limiting collective bargaining, ending the automatic withdrawal of union dues via payroll deduction, and the other steps to lessen the ability of unions to control government purse strings - has paid immediate real dividends for Wisconsin. School districts, once in fiscal straits because of collective bargaining agreements that only enriched the unions, now have more control over their fiscal circumstances. They're in the 'black' - and expanding their services to the students of their districts. The state and local governments are also retaking control of their spending - and deficits are becoming surpluses....while union membership numbers are collapsing as fast as their power.
That is the model that California and other progressive states need to implement - but seem to lack the will do so. But if more in California understand the real damage that is being done to all of us, in particular our students, by the California Teachers Association, perhaps we can find the will needed. This article in the LA Times, is, I think, a step in that direction....even if the LA Times didn't intend it to be.
Last year, as Gov. Jerry Brown hammered out final details of the state budget, he huddled around a conference table with three of the most powerful people in state government: the Assembly speaker, the Senate leader — and Joe Nuñez, chief lobbyist for the California Teachers Assn.This is a rare, read it all article in the LA Times.
California was on the edge of fiscal crisis. Negotiations had come down to one sticking point: Brown and the legislators would balance the books by assuming that billions of dollars in extra revenue would materialize, then cut deeply from schools if it didn't.
Nuñez said no.
Opposition from the powerful union, which had just staged a week of public protests against budget cuts, could mean a costly legal challenge. So the group took a break, and the officials retired to another room to hash out something acceptable to CTA while Nuñez awaited their return.
It may seem unorthodox for an unelected citizen to sit with Sacramento's elite as they pick winners and losers in the annual spending sweepstakes. But few major financial decisions in California are made without Nuñez, who represents what is arguably the most potent force in state politics.
…
Even before CTA helped Jerry Brown win election, he was sympathetic to many of its causes, such as limiting standardized testing and reducing government's role in schools. On his first full day in office, he sacked the majority of the state Board of Education.
He replaced several proponents of charter schools, parent power and teacher accountability with people friendlier to the union, including one of its lobbyists, Patricia Rucker. A few days later, Brown proposed a budget that eliminated money for a state database of such information as which courses a teacher had taught and what credentials he or she had, a system CTA opposed.
Oh, and how did a deal finally get cut for the California budget?
The deal came when the elected Democrat leadership agreed to a provision that stated no matter how fiscally strapped a school district might be - it could not lay off any teachers during the fiscal year.
So where is California fiscally? Our budget deficit continues to soar - with Governor Brown's bet that the Facebook IPO would generate billions widely missing the mark and now even more so with state sales tax revenues being down 33.5% from what was estimated / projected in the state budget. The $9.6 billion cash deficit that existed on the June 30th is now $18 billion and growing.
The state has avoided default by temporarily borrowing from state trust funds, but those accounts will soon need their cash back to continue operating. Today California quickly began trying to sell $10 billion in municipal bonds to fund the record $28 billion they need to keep the lights on. With tax revenue plummeting and the state already the second lowest rated credit in the country, if the independent credit rating agencies downgrade the state to “junk bond", California will be short up to $18 billion and default.California is America's Greece and Spain....to the point that like Spain, CA is committing to spend $100 billion on a high speed rail network that has no viable business need or market - all in the name of 'stimulus' - but will only enrich unions and other allies of Governor Brown.
The Golden State is no longer golden - and its time to realize why this is the case.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
SCOTUS & Unions
The Supreme Court announced the disposition of 4 cases today, none of which were the highly watched Obamacare case or the Federal Government versus Arizona over SB1070 - the state's response to the Obama Administration's lack of enforcement of Federal immigration laws.
One of the cases was a strong 7-2 ruling against the SEIU - and another major rejection of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The specifics on this ruling comes from the exemplary SCOTUSBlog - one of the best sites in the blogosphere for information and analysis on Supreme Court cases....
An example of the impact is this Spring 2010 article, "The Beholden State - How Public Sector Unions Broke California"...
This is no different from the actions of both public sector unions and private sector unions like the AFL/CIO which dumped tens of millions into Wisconsin to prevent Governor Scott Walker's reforms - and then attempt to recall the Governor when the legislation passed.
Here's another example about how some unions operate - and take advantage of their members...
One of the cases was a strong 7-2 ruling against the SEIU - and another major rejection of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The specifics on this ruling comes from the exemplary SCOTUSBlog - one of the best sites in the blogosphere for information and analysis on Supreme Court cases....
Justice Alito announced the second opinion of the day, in Knox v. Service Employees International Union. By a vote of seven to two, the Court reversed the decision of the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration. It held that the case is not moot; five members of the Court further held that the First Amendment does not allow a public-sector union to require objecting non-members to pay a special fee for the purposes of financing the union’s political and ideological activities. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Kagan.This is not good news for unions which are under increased scrutiny over their collection of dues and the use of these dues for their political advocacy interests - without any consideration or approval from the union members for the use of their dues on those political issues.
An example of the impact is this Spring 2010 article, "The Beholden State - How Public Sector Unions Broke California"...
The camera focuses on an official of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), California’s largest public-employee union, sitting in a legislative chamber and speaking into a microphone. “We helped to get you into office, and we got a good memory,” she says matter-of-factly to the elected officials outside the shot. “Come November, if you don’t back our program, we’ll get you out of office.’
This is no different from the actions of both public sector unions and private sector unions like the AFL/CIO which dumped tens of millions into Wisconsin to prevent Governor Scott Walker's reforms - and then attempt to recall the Governor when the legislation passed.
Here's another example about how some unions operate - and take advantage of their members...
Michigan School Union demands members bank account, credit card numbers to guarantee dues payments… A union president’s letter shows one school employee union planned to handle automatic dues collection of its members by demanding full payment at the start of the year or requiring its members to give a checking or savings account number or credit card for automatic monthly withdrawals.I wonder what these teachers get for their $778 a year? Is it like the Sacramento, CA 'Teacher of the Year' I reported about last week who was laid off because of union seniority rules which protected older and less effective teachers?
Debbie Bence, president of the Plymouth-Canton Cafeteria Association, sent a letter to her union members on June 4 stating that the dues had to be paid as a condition of employment.
Bence said the financial information would be kept confidential and kept at the Michigan Education Association headquarters. News reports state that union dues to the MEA are capped at $778 a year.
Saturday, June 16, 2012
More Reasons Why Public Sector Unions Are Problems
Earlier this week, the Heritage Foundation noted that the union for Chicago teachers are demanding a 30% pay raise...
This is just stunning. And its no real surprise that 91% of the members of the union voted to go on strike if their absurd demands are not met - would you vote to not demand a 30% pay raise?
What I am wondering is what is the most stunning? The 30% pay raise demand from a district already facing a $700 million operating deficit? Or the demand for this compensation to extend their working day from 5.5 hours / day to 7.5 hours / day? Or the demand to be earning more than double the median income of families in Chicago?
To me, the most stunning is the demand in the face of the facts that only 15% of the city's fourth graders are proficient in reading, and only 56% of the students graduate from High School.
But this is how the teachers unions operate. Under the rules of the teachers unions, the students are not the focus and clearly do not come first in their priorities. In Sacramento, California, the school district's 'Teacher of the Year' was just fired...
Yet in Chicago, where just 15 percent of fourth graders are proficient in reading (and just 56 percent of students graduate), the teachers union is set to strike if the district does not agree to a 30 percent increase in teachers’ salaries.
The average teacher in Chicago Public Schools—a district facing a $700 million deficit—makes $71,000 per year before benefits are included. If the district meets union demands and rewards teachers with the requested salary increase, education employees will receive compensation north of $92,000 per year.
According to the Illinois Policy Institute, the average annual income of a family in Chicago is $47,000 per year. If implemented, the 30 percent raise will mean that in nine months, a single teacher in the Chicago Public School system will take home nearly double what the average family in the city earns in a year.
According to the union, 91 percent of its members voted for the ability to strike. That vote gives the union the ability to walk out of public school classrooms as children return to school this fall.
The union argues that Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) wants to extend the school day, and that the requested salary increase would compensate them for extending the school day from 5.5 hours—among the nation’s shortest school days—to 7.5 hours.
This is just stunning. And its no real surprise that 91% of the members of the union voted to go on strike if their absurd demands are not met - would you vote to not demand a 30% pay raise?
What I am wondering is what is the most stunning? The 30% pay raise demand from a district already facing a $700 million operating deficit? Or the demand for this compensation to extend their working day from 5.5 hours / day to 7.5 hours / day? Or the demand to be earning more than double the median income of families in Chicago?
To me, the most stunning is the demand in the face of the facts that only 15% of the city's fourth graders are proficient in reading, and only 56% of the students graduate from High School.
But this is how the teachers unions operate. Under the rules of the teachers unions, the students are not the focus and clearly do not come first in their priorities. In Sacramento, California, the school district's 'Teacher of the Year' was just fired...
It doesn’t matter anymore how good you are at your job if you live in the failing state of California; if you’re on a lower rung of the ladder in terms of seniority, you’re toast.These highlight the importance of Wisconsin and the actions of Governor Scott Walker - showing how to oppose public sector unions and refocus attention towards the students and fiscal responsibility.
Michelle Apperson, a teacher at the Sutterville Elementary School in Sacramento who was named “teacher of the year” by the school district, was fired because she was outranked in seniority.
The state’s budget deficit, which has ballooned to $16 million, has triggered a move by Governor Jerry Brown to make cuts across the board, and schools across the state are being forced by budget cuts to fire thousands of teachers.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Bill Maher - We Haven't Had a Better President Since Jimmy Carter
Bill Maher - We Haven’t Had a Better President Since Jimmy Carter
Speaks volumes on this nimrod...
During his appearance on the Conan O'Brien Show, he also pontificated that the 'bullying' prank done by Mitt Romney in 1965 was far worse than reports of Michael Jackson sexually abusing children....
He's also one of the biggest morons in Hollywood - a real legend in his own mind....
Hat Tip for the first video - - Breitbart.com
Speaks volumes on this nimrod...
During his appearance on the Conan O'Brien Show, he also pontificated that the 'bullying' prank done by Mitt Romney in 1965 was far worse than reports of Michael Jackson sexually abusing children....
Appearing as a guest on Tuesday's Conan show on TBS, the HBO comedian absurdly suggested that recent allegation of "bullying" in high school by Mitt Romney are worse than being molested by Michael Jackson, and asserted that he would be willing trade being beat up in grade school for being "gently masturbated by a pop star." ...This is the largest single contributor to Barack Obama's Super PAC - donating $1 million to support the President.
But as far as this bullying, you know, this made me think of the Michael Jackson situation. Because, you know, he was accused of being a child molester. We'll never know because he's gone, but even his worst accuser never said that he did anything like actually have sex with them. It was grabby, grabby under the covers. Which is terribly wrong.
Which is terribly wrong.
Way to take a stand, Bill!
He's also one of the biggest morons in Hollywood - a real legend in his own mind....
Hat Tip for the first video - - Breitbart.com
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Proposition 8
As noted in the QH update on Feb. 7, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court ruling that struck down California's Proposition 8 - which was an amendment to the California State Constitution defining marriage as only being between one man and one woman - as unconstitutional under the US Constitution.
For those in California who tracked the case from 2008 to present, this decision by the 9th Circuit was not a surprise. The 9th Circuit is one of the most liberal Circuit courts in the United States - and one of the most oft overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
A brief history is needed to set the background for the 9th Circuit decision.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court determined that the equal protection clause within the California State Constitution afforded the rights for homosexual couples to marry - and invalidated a state law on the books that prohibited gay marriage. The jurists believed that to deny the ability to marry to homosexual couples was the denial of a fundamental right and in itself discriminatory towards homosexual couples.
This case came after Gavin Newsom, then the Mayor of San Francisco, decided to ignore an existing state law that prohibited gay marriages and the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in San Francisco.
Opponents of gay marriage saw this as judicial activism, claiming that the CA Supreme Court created a new set of rights not expressively given within the State Constitution. Others also argued that one's sexual preference was not a specific protected class as one's race, gender, or creed is. Since one of the rationales used by the Supreme Court in their ruling was that the State Constitution did not specifically define marriage, these opponents got Proposition 8 onto the fall 2008 ballot - to amend the State Constitution to specifically read that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
It should be noted, that at this point of time, same sex couples in California had all of the rights and obligations of heterosexual marriage via civil unions...all of the rights except the state sanctioned use of the term 'marriage' as in a marriage license.
The citizens of California passed Proposition 8 by 52.24% in favor to 47.76% opposed. The State Constitution was amended....and the proponents for gay marriage sued to have Proposition 8 overturned even though it was passed by a popular majority. This led to the first trial and then to the appeal to the 9th Circuit.
As discussed yesterday, the ruling by the three judge panel of the 9th Circuit would address three major questions.
The first, Should Judge Walker, who heard the original case, have recused himself from the case as he was a gay man, involved in a long term relationship, and therefore had a conflict of interest in the deciding of a case regarding the decision on permitting gay marriage?
The 9th Circuit Court ruled unanimously, 3-0, that he should not have recused himself. This gets into a grey area, but I think was a good decision. What if the case was about a Catholic charity, with a Catholic judge? Would we have asked for the recusal of that judge because of his religion? We have to expect a judge to be more prudent and professional. While Judge Walker, in my opinion, pressed the levels of professionalism regarding his handling of the trial, and in particular, the video of the trial, there are processes in place to address that conduct...and Walker is now retired.
The second question was if the defenders of Proposition 8 had the proper legal standing to defend the Proposition. This was a state ballot / amendment to the state Constitution. In normal circumstances, the process would be defended by the government of California - the Governor and Attorney General. However in this case, these Democrat officials declined to defend Proposition 8 as they advocate gay marriage. The 9th Circuit jurists unanimously determined that the groups who pushed for Prop 8 to be a ballot measure had standing to defend the proposition.
The third question was the real one for this case - was the Proposition constitutional?
For those in California who tracked the case from 2008 to present, this decision by the 9th Circuit was not a surprise. The 9th Circuit is one of the most liberal Circuit courts in the United States - and one of the most oft overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
A brief history is needed to set the background for the 9th Circuit decision.
In 2008, the California Supreme Court determined that the equal protection clause within the California State Constitution afforded the rights for homosexual couples to marry - and invalidated a state law on the books that prohibited gay marriage. The jurists believed that to deny the ability to marry to homosexual couples was the denial of a fundamental right and in itself discriminatory towards homosexual couples.
This case came after Gavin Newsom, then the Mayor of San Francisco, decided to ignore an existing state law that prohibited gay marriages and the issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples in San Francisco.
Opponents of gay marriage saw this as judicial activism, claiming that the CA Supreme Court created a new set of rights not expressively given within the State Constitution. Others also argued that one's sexual preference was not a specific protected class as one's race, gender, or creed is. Since one of the rationales used by the Supreme Court in their ruling was that the State Constitution did not specifically define marriage, these opponents got Proposition 8 onto the fall 2008 ballot - to amend the State Constitution to specifically read that marriage is only between one man and one woman.
It should be noted, that at this point of time, same sex couples in California had all of the rights and obligations of heterosexual marriage via civil unions...all of the rights except the state sanctioned use of the term 'marriage' as in a marriage license.
The citizens of California passed Proposition 8 by 52.24% in favor to 47.76% opposed. The State Constitution was amended....and the proponents for gay marriage sued to have Proposition 8 overturned even though it was passed by a popular majority. This led to the first trial and then to the appeal to the 9th Circuit.
As discussed yesterday, the ruling by the three judge panel of the 9th Circuit would address three major questions.
The first, Should Judge Walker, who heard the original case, have recused himself from the case as he was a gay man, involved in a long term relationship, and therefore had a conflict of interest in the deciding of a case regarding the decision on permitting gay marriage?
The 9th Circuit Court ruled unanimously, 3-0, that he should not have recused himself. This gets into a grey area, but I think was a good decision. What if the case was about a Catholic charity, with a Catholic judge? Would we have asked for the recusal of that judge because of his religion? We have to expect a judge to be more prudent and professional. While Judge Walker, in my opinion, pressed the levels of professionalism regarding his handling of the trial, and in particular, the video of the trial, there are processes in place to address that conduct...and Walker is now retired.
The second question was if the defenders of Proposition 8 had the proper legal standing to defend the Proposition. This was a state ballot / amendment to the state Constitution. In normal circumstances, the process would be defended by the government of California - the Governor and Attorney General. However in this case, these Democrat officials declined to defend Proposition 8 as they advocate gay marriage. The 9th Circuit jurists unanimously determined that the groups who pushed for Prop 8 to be a ballot measure had standing to defend the proposition.
The third question was the real one for this case - was the Proposition constitutional?
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
California is America's Greece
California State Controller John Chiang sent a letter to state lawmakers today warning that without action, California would run out of cash in March 2012.
$2.6 billion lower revenues than projected combined with $2.6 billion in more expenditures than planned.
Says a lot about a State Government led by a Governor who thinks that the High Speed Rail Network Board's $100 billion - $120 billion cost estimate was overstated and the revenues of the State's punitive cap and trade fee structure will bring in excess of $1 billion annually.
Only a few Republicans are apparently raising questions about not only the higher than expected revenues, but how and when the delayed payments and 'adjusted' state accounts will be resolved.
Of course none of this is because of or the responsibility of Governor Brown and the progressive Democrats that dominate California. The State's fiscal challenges are the result of the Republicans preventing tax increases and the courts that hamstring the State's budget.
The announcement is surprising since lawmakers previously believed the state had enough cash to last through the fiscal year that ends in June.
But Chiang said additional cash management solutions are needed because state tax revenues are $2.6 billion less than what Gov. Jerry Brown and state lawmakers assumed in their optimistic budget last year. Meanwhile, Chiang said, the state is spending $2.6 billion more than state leaders planned on.
$2.6 billion lower revenues than projected combined with $2.6 billion in more expenditures than planned.
Says a lot about a State Government led by a Governor who thinks that the High Speed Rail Network Board's $100 billion - $120 billion cost estimate was overstated and the revenues of the State's punitive cap and trade fee structure will bring in excess of $1 billion annually.
Only a few Republicans are apparently raising questions about not only the higher than expected revenues, but how and when the delayed payments and 'adjusted' state accounts will be resolved.
Of course none of this is because of or the responsibility of Governor Brown and the progressive Democrats that dominate California. The State's fiscal challenges are the result of the Republicans preventing tax increases and the courts that hamstring the State's budget.
Friday, January 6, 2012
Brown's Budget - California Still Emulating Greece
Leveraging the same intellectual and ideological bankruptcy as President Barack Obama is Governor Jerry Brown in California.
California remains a fundamentally bankrupt state with a real budget deficit of over $20 billion dollars. Decades of progressive leadership in the State Legislature has left the state a shadow of the 'Golden State' persona. For the 7th consecutive year, this is the worst state in the union for business - and the anti-business approach not only continues, but accelerates. Faced with an irresponsible fiscal model, the Governor introduces a fantasy driven budget (8%+ investment returns?) assuming that the Governor's $7 billion tax increases for the November ballot passes - and somehow will solve the huge deficit we have now...and will be worse in July.
Then he threatens us that if we don't pass his tax increases and fantasy drive revenue assumptions, he will gut education spending, first responders, courts, lifeguards at beaches, and state parks. These all take precedence over attacking real waste and fraud within the State Budget - the thousands of duplicate and wasteful agencies / regulatory bodies, giving illegal immigrants tuition to State Universities, funding and rewarding public sector unions, and making the State Government the leading employer in the State. In other words, doing the same thing as has been done for decades, promising different results - and too many morons in California buy this and other BS.
BS like the argument being made over the Brown tax increases. The target - celebrity twit Kim Kardashian. Brown's allies say that since Kim earned $12M in 2011 and only paid 10.3% state income taxes on that total - it's unfair that someone who earned the average salary in the state, $47K pays 9.3% income tax rate.
The 10.3% income rate is the current maximum state income tax rate and kicks in at incomes over $1,000,000 ....while the just 1 point lower 9.3% income tax rate is applicable at $46,766. The next tranche down, the 8% rate starts at incomes at $37,005.
This is the structure the Democrat dominated State Legislature established. Few other states have income earners making as little as $37,005 paying a 8% state tax rate - those that approach this are also dominated by progressives.
Today, in order to justify a major temporary (as the Governor's tax proposition is for only a temporary tax hike to fix a permanent problem) increase - we're told these rates as defined by the Democrats are 'unfair'...after all Kim only pays 1% more tax than the average Californian.
Is that really the case? 10.3% of $12,000,000 is a tax liability of $1,236,000. 9.3% of $47,000 is $4,371. This means that Kim already is paying $1,231,629 more in state income taxes than the average Californian. This is also on top of her Federal income tax liability which is likely well over $1,000,000 annually.
Is it really unfair that Kim pays 282 times what the average Californian pays? What is the right number? 500 times more? 1,0000 times more? Why not take 90% of what the Feds leave her with?
Then what will Kim do if she sees her California tax liability increase significantly?
If she doesn't leave the State - as so many other job creators, wealthy, and middle class are already doing - will she still continue to hire / employ as many people as she does today? The PR flacks, the makeup artists, the personal assistants, the personal trainers, the lawyers, the costumers, the entourage?
Anyone consider the impact 'downstream' of this decision. In Excremento - it's not likely.
Well, Kim might - as even if taxed at the higher rates and paying $300,000 or $400,000 more in California income taxes, she still has plenty left - but then...if the State is only getting less than half a million more from Kim and others like her - how does it close a $20 billion plus budget deficit?
The answer is, it doesn't. Just as with the Feds, we can take 100% of the worth of the Forbes 400, and that will only provide $1.5 trillion towards this years $1.3T - $1.6T budget deficit or the $1.2T increase being asked for by the President on the nation's credit card limit.
California doesn't have a revenue problem. The US doesn't have a revenue problem.
We have spending problems. Problems based not only on spending far more than the government seizes from the economy - but in it's priorities and choices as to how and where it spends it's money.
California remains a fundamentally bankrupt state with a real budget deficit of over $20 billion dollars. Decades of progressive leadership in the State Legislature has left the state a shadow of the 'Golden State' persona. For the 7th consecutive year, this is the worst state in the union for business - and the anti-business approach not only continues, but accelerates. Faced with an irresponsible fiscal model, the Governor introduces a fantasy driven budget (8%+ investment returns?) assuming that the Governor's $7 billion tax increases for the November ballot passes - and somehow will solve the huge deficit we have now...and will be worse in July.
Then he threatens us that if we don't pass his tax increases and fantasy drive revenue assumptions, he will gut education spending, first responders, courts, lifeguards at beaches, and state parks. These all take precedence over attacking real waste and fraud within the State Budget - the thousands of duplicate and wasteful agencies / regulatory bodies, giving illegal immigrants tuition to State Universities, funding and rewarding public sector unions, and making the State Government the leading employer in the State. In other words, doing the same thing as has been done for decades, promising different results - and too many morons in California buy this and other BS.
BS like the argument being made over the Brown tax increases. The target - celebrity twit Kim Kardashian. Brown's allies say that since Kim earned $12M in 2011 and only paid 10.3% state income taxes on that total - it's unfair that someone who earned the average salary in the state, $47K pays 9.3% income tax rate.
The 10.3% income rate is the current maximum state income tax rate and kicks in at incomes over $1,000,000 ....while the just 1 point lower 9.3% income tax rate is applicable at $46,766. The next tranche down, the 8% rate starts at incomes at $37,005.
This is the structure the Democrat dominated State Legislature established. Few other states have income earners making as little as $37,005 paying a 8% state tax rate - those that approach this are also dominated by progressives.
Today, in order to justify a major temporary (as the Governor's tax proposition is for only a temporary tax hike to fix a permanent problem) increase - we're told these rates as defined by the Democrats are 'unfair'...after all Kim only pays 1% more tax than the average Californian.
Is that really the case? 10.3% of $12,000,000 is a tax liability of $1,236,000. 9.3% of $47,000 is $4,371. This means that Kim already is paying $1,231,629 more in state income taxes than the average Californian. This is also on top of her Federal income tax liability which is likely well over $1,000,000 annually.
Is it really unfair that Kim pays 282 times what the average Californian pays? What is the right number? 500 times more? 1,0000 times more? Why not take 90% of what the Feds leave her with?
Then what will Kim do if she sees her California tax liability increase significantly?
If she doesn't leave the State - as so many other job creators, wealthy, and middle class are already doing - will she still continue to hire / employ as many people as she does today? The PR flacks, the makeup artists, the personal assistants, the personal trainers, the lawyers, the costumers, the entourage?
Anyone consider the impact 'downstream' of this decision. In Excremento - it's not likely.
Well, Kim might - as even if taxed at the higher rates and paying $300,000 or $400,000 more in California income taxes, she still has plenty left - but then...if the State is only getting less than half a million more from Kim and others like her - how does it close a $20 billion plus budget deficit?
The answer is, it doesn't. Just as with the Feds, we can take 100% of the worth of the Forbes 400, and that will only provide $1.5 trillion towards this years $1.3T - $1.6T budget deficit or the $1.2T increase being asked for by the President on the nation's credit card limit.
California doesn't have a revenue problem. The US doesn't have a revenue problem.
We have spending problems. Problems based not only on spending far more than the government seizes from the economy - but in it's priorities and choices as to how and where it spends it's money.
Friday, December 23, 2011
A California Update
Victor Davis Hanson has a superb and very sobering look at California's Central Valley region. This area is, or rather, was one of the great agricultural bastions of America. Generations of Californians farmed in this fertile valley. In his essay, 'A Vandalized Valley', VDH paints a picture of the current state of the Central Valley - reflecting the effects of decades of progressivism, tolerance, and changing values...
There is no single cause to the changes that are dramatically affecting life inside California's Central Valley. Illegal immigration has had an impact, as has the tolerance, political correctness, and unwillingness to really focus on those who don't want to follow the accepted rules and actions of society. The effects of decades of progressivism in the State Government has also had an impact as this not only supported and encouraged the environment that the other contributors leveraged, but also set policies into play that defined that environment - like the misdirected focus towards certain types of crimes as opposed to others - or the unwillingness to incarcerate and punish criminals. It's the reflection of 'social justice' and 'social engineering' as advocated by progressivism.
Not long after reading this sobering essay, and reflecting on the changes, I read this commentary that notes how the Los Angeles Police Department has decided to turn a blind eye towards illegal aliens driving without drivers licenses.
In California, illegal immigrants, by law, cannot get drivers licenses. Also by law, in California, if one is caught driving without a drivers license, the arresting entity can impound the cars being driven by unlicensed drivers.
“It’s a fairness issue,” Chief Beck told the Los Angeles Times. “There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked.”
Ah, fairness. The rhetorical refuge of a progressive.
But this pales to the thought that there is clearly something wrong with the mindset that the Chief of the LAPD, or the Mayor of Los Angeles has the power to decide, whenever they wish, just which laws are to be enforced...
There is one last story to report on that reflects just how bankrupt California is - and this comes from not only the California High Speed Rail Network Board, who want to waste something north of $120 billion on a rail network that has no viable business model, and their political supporters.
Mercury News conducted an investigation into this claim. They found that this project would create only 20,000 to 60,000 jobs during an average year - and would employ only a few thousand people on a permanent basis once the construction was completed.
The claim that the project will create 1,000,000 jobs is so outlandish, it should have been summarily ridiculed and rejected - like the claim from the Board that the station in Merced, California would see / process more passengers in a day heading to Los Angeles than Amtrak currently handles in their busiest station in their network, New York City's Penn Station.
There should be some repercussions for this level of lying, fabrication, misrepresentation in the name of political expediency. But then, the reason there are not has a lot to do with the reasons why the Central Valley is more like a Third World nation than part of the US.
I am starting to feel as if I am living in a Vandal state, perhaps on the frontier near Carthage around a.d. 530, or in a beleaguered Rome in 455. Here are some updates from the rural area surrounding my farm, taken from about a 30-mile radius. In this take, I am not so much interested in chronicling the flotsam and jetsam as in fathoming whether there is some ideology that drives it...This is a 'read it all' essay.
...The state’s reaction to all this is a contorted exercise in blaming the victim, in both the immediate and the abstract senses. Governor Brown wants to raise income taxes on the top two brackets by 1 to 2 percentage points, making them over 11 and 12 percent respectively. That our schools are near dead last in test scores, that many of our main freeways are potholed relics from the 1960s, that we just passed the DREAM Act to extend state financial support for college-age illegal aliens, and that the overtaxed are fleeing the state do not register. Again, those who in theory can pay, should — and should keep quiet about why they must suddenly pay a 12 percent income tax that was not needed, say, in 1991, 1971, or 1961, when test scores were higher, roads better, and communities far safer.
There is, of course, a vague code of silence about who is doing the stealing, although occasionally the most flagrant offenders are caught either by sheriffs or on tape; or, in my typical case, run off only to return successfully at night. In the vast majority of cases, rural central California is being vandalized by gangs of young Mexican nationals or Mexican-Americans — in the latter case, a criminal subset of an otherwise largely successful and increasingly integrated and assimilated near majority of the state’s population. Everyone knows it; everyone keeps quiet about it — even though increasingly the victims are the established local Mexican-American middle class that now runs the city councils of most rural towns and must deal with the costs.
There is no single cause to the changes that are dramatically affecting life inside California's Central Valley. Illegal immigration has had an impact, as has the tolerance, political correctness, and unwillingness to really focus on those who don't want to follow the accepted rules and actions of society. The effects of decades of progressivism in the State Government has also had an impact as this not only supported and encouraged the environment that the other contributors leveraged, but also set policies into play that defined that environment - like the misdirected focus towards certain types of crimes as opposed to others - or the unwillingness to incarcerate and punish criminals. It's the reflection of 'social justice' and 'social engineering' as advocated by progressivism.
Not long after reading this sobering essay, and reflecting on the changes, I read this commentary that notes how the Los Angeles Police Department has decided to turn a blind eye towards illegal aliens driving without drivers licenses.
In California, illegal immigrants, by law, cannot get drivers licenses. Also by law, in California, if one is caught driving without a drivers license, the arresting entity can impound the cars being driven by unlicensed drivers.
Section 14607.4(f) of the California Vehicle Code reads as follows:The LA city government is dominated by progressive Democrats. Los Angeles is one of California's sanctuary cities for illegal immigrants. The City and LAPD have defined a policy to not ask questions about a person's immigration status during any level of contact with that person - and in fact, when it comes to the City, they use taxpayer funds to provide benefits and assistance for illegal immigrants. Now, the LAPD has taken this policy another step further - implementing a new policy to disregard California law, and no longer impound vehicles being driven by illegal aliens without drivers licenses.
It is necessary and appropriate to take additional steps to prevent unlicensed drivers from driving, including the civil forfeiture of vehicles used by unlicensed drivers. The state has a critical interest in enforcing its traffic laws and in keeping unlicensed drivers from illegally driving. Seizing the vehicles used by unlicensed drivers serves a significant governmental and public interest, namely the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of Californians from the harm of unlicensed drivers, who are involved in a disproportionate number of traffic incidents, and the avoidance of the associated destruction and damage to lives and property.
“It’s a fairness issue,” Chief Beck told the Los Angeles Times. “There is a vast difference between someone driving without a license because they cannot legally be issued one and someone driving after having their license revoked.”
Ah, fairness. The rhetorical refuge of a progressive.
But this pales to the thought that there is clearly something wrong with the mindset that the Chief of the LAPD, or the Mayor of Los Angeles has the power to decide, whenever they wish, just which laws are to be enforced...
There is one last story to report on that reflects just how bankrupt California is - and this comes from not only the California High Speed Rail Network Board, who want to waste something north of $120 billion on a rail network that has no viable business model, and their political supporters.
Mercury News conducted an investigation into this claim. They found that this project would create only 20,000 to 60,000 jobs during an average year - and would employ only a few thousand people on a permanent basis once the construction was completed.
The claim that the project will create 1,000,000 jobs is so outlandish, it should have been summarily ridiculed and rejected - like the claim from the Board that the station in Merced, California would see / process more passengers in a day heading to Los Angeles than Amtrak currently handles in their busiest station in their network, New York City's Penn Station.
There should be some repercussions for this level of lying, fabrication, misrepresentation in the name of political expediency. But then, the reason there are not has a lot to do with the reasons why the Central Valley is more like a Third World nation than part of the US.
How Does This Compare?
As noted, the Senate and House have both approved the temporary 2 month Social Security Payroll Tax Reduction advocated by the President and Democrats over the House GOP's bill to provide an extension for the entire 2012 calendar year - 'paid for' by spending reductions the President and Democrats opposed.
The President used his bully pulpit to pressure the House GOP to accept the Senate bill which didn't have the spending reductions and punted the debate over how to 'pay for' the temporary tax reduction until after the holidays. The President, and Democrats, tossed out numbers like 160 million workers were facing a tax increase on January 1 if the temporary 2% reduction wasn't extended - even though the US Census Bureau says the US economy only has 131.7 million workers.
They also repeated the claim that as a result of this temporary tax reduction, every worker would see an additional $40 in their biweekly paychecks - $160 for the 2 month extension and about $1,000 for a full year extension. Left unsaid was that this temporary tax reduction would reduce the revenues coming into the Federal Government by $121 - $130 billion in 2012. That represents a little less than 10% of the projected deficit.
How does this $1,000 average additional take home pay really compare to the effects of some of the other policies enacted by the Obama Administration?
Here in California, we're actually happy at the moment with gasoline prices in the $3.65 a gallon range for unleaded regular...it's down from about $4.00 a gallon several months ago. Memories of $2.50 a gallon prices are getting pretty distant...
I wonder if it's possible to create a tally that has on one side the $1,000 per year the Administration wants to give the consumer via a temporary reduction in the Social Security Payroll Tax plus any other programs advocated by the Administration that increases funds for the consume, and on the other side the additional costs the consumer has to bear as a direct result of the policies and regulations advocated by the Administration. I suspect it would be a surprisingly high net outflow for the consumer.
The President used his bully pulpit to pressure the House GOP to accept the Senate bill which didn't have the spending reductions and punted the debate over how to 'pay for' the temporary tax reduction until after the holidays. The President, and Democrats, tossed out numbers like 160 million workers were facing a tax increase on January 1 if the temporary 2% reduction wasn't extended - even though the US Census Bureau says the US economy only has 131.7 million workers.
They also repeated the claim that as a result of this temporary tax reduction, every worker would see an additional $40 in their biweekly paychecks - $160 for the 2 month extension and about $1,000 for a full year extension. Left unsaid was that this temporary tax reduction would reduce the revenues coming into the Federal Government by $121 - $130 billion in 2012. That represents a little less than 10% of the projected deficit.
How does this $1,000 average additional take home pay really compare to the effects of some of the other policies enacted by the Obama Administration?
An estimated 84 Million Americans will be fueling up to drive over the next few weeks. Despite a recent decline in gas prices, this years average cost of fuel sets a new record. For 2011, the national average price for fuel is about $3.50 a gallon. That accounts for about 8.4% of the average American family’s income, the highest percentage in 30 years.This is also the same Administration that is opposing authorizing the expansion of the Keystone pipeline to increase the supply of oil that can be bought and brought to US refineries along the Gulf Coast. It's also the same Administration whose EPA just announced major new regulations intended to reduce the already minuscule mercury levels released by coal powered power plants -regulations that will cost billions of dollars to the industry, result in plants closing, electricity rates skyrocketing, lost jobs, and other higher costs related to the higher energy costs. (Ironic though, that the Administration is also pushing for consumers to bring mercury into their homes at higher amounts by the adoption of CFL light bulbs...)
The average American household will have spent, a record, $4,155 filling up this year. Though it’s not what some Eastern Iowans wanted to hear, for many it wasn’t a surprise. “It’s better now, it was pretty bad earlier in the year, but it’s better now. Which I appreciate because you spend a lot more on gas in the winter time,” said Charles Conner, of Cedar Rapids.
Fuel hasn’t been cheap here in Iowa, or across the country this year. On average, fuel was about 76 cents per gallon more than in 2010. It was 29 cents per gallon more than in 2008. “Having a truck it sucks when you are paying 60 to 70 bucks a tank,” said Matthew Woods, of Cedar Rapids. Lacey Higdon, of Rowley drives about 45 minutes to and from work each day. “It’s a long commute. I work two jobs here in Cedar Rapids so I am here seven days a week, so it’s good to see them going down,” said Higdon.
Here in California, we're actually happy at the moment with gasoline prices in the $3.65 a gallon range for unleaded regular...it's down from about $4.00 a gallon several months ago. Memories of $2.50 a gallon prices are getting pretty distant...
I wonder if it's possible to create a tally that has on one side the $1,000 per year the Administration wants to give the consumer via a temporary reduction in the Social Security Payroll Tax plus any other programs advocated by the Administration that increases funds for the consume, and on the other side the additional costs the consumer has to bear as a direct result of the policies and regulations advocated by the Administration. I suspect it would be a surprisingly high net outflow for the consumer.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Trebling Down on Stupid - California's Mismanagement
Back on November 5th, I did a post about California's Bullet Train Folly which highlighted the trebling of the costs, over just 3 years, and the 10 year longer than originally projected completion date for the planned High Speed Rail Network to connect Los Angeles with San Francisco. When voters first a 2006 proposition authorizing a bond issue to help fund this initiative, the total cost for the program was projected to be $33B. Now, the cost is projected to be $98.5B, and that doesn't include a nearly $20B contingency that is desired for potential additional cost increases. All of this for a project that to many has no viable business model and estimates of passenger use that defy common sense.
My conclusion, "That's why this project, if permitted to continue, will become one of the biggest and most expensive flops in the history of the US and California."
Last Thursday, California Governor Jerry Brown said he would formally request the State Legislature to approve billions of dollars for the construction of the High Speed Rail Network.
In addition to the billions that the State will have to fund, this project is also dependent on nearly $50B to come from the Federal Government in addition to billions needed to come from private investors....investors who have thus far expressed no real interest in the program.
The irresponsibility of this decision is astounding. Both the Federal Government and California have major fiscal challenges related to excessive spending. The Feds now run regular annual deficits of over $1 trillion - adding over $4 trillion to the national debt in just 3 years of the Obama Administration. Our national debt is almost equal to our annual GDP and the country is facing another credit downgrade because it cannot cut $1.2 trillion from the next 10 years of expenditures. California is in the same bad shape. Revenues coming into the state this year are running $1.5 billion short of forecasts while the state's spending is $1.7 billion above projected levels. The current year's budget shortfall for California is $25 billion dollars and we're projected to run deficits of more than $20 billion through 2016 at least. None of these state numbers include any of the costs associated with the rail network.
Governor Brown says that these costs are 'manageable' because they are across a 23 year construction period for the full project. Costs trebled in just 3 years, so we're to expect that costs would not continue to escalate across the full 23 years of the project - or that it would only take 23 years to do the project? We're also being asked to believe that by 2030, tiny Merced California will be loading more passengers onto this network per day than Amtrak does per day today through it's busiest station - Penn Station in New York City?
If I get on Southwest.com and check airfares for a Friday departure from Los Angeles to San Francisco next month, I can get airfares as low as $49 one way....with most web fares in the $89 range. I can drive from my home to San Francisco in about 6 hours and it would cost me about $50 for gas.
Compare these to the $81 fare (today's dollars) for the fare of the high speed train. An hour and third by air versus three and a half or so by rail. Where's my incentive to go by rail? California's millions are supposed to force me to go by rail because roads and airports will be so crowded and overloaded?! How many more millions of Californians are expected in the next decade - a state that is starting to lose population because of it's business climate?
Brown said, "Lincoln built the transcontinental railroad during the Civil War, and we built the Golden Gate Bridge during the Great Depression" as a justification for undertaking this initiative.
President Obama has also used a similar statement as a justification for certain projects. Both are taking liberties with history to promote their agenda. The transcontinental railroad, constructed between 1863 and 1869 was primarily done by two private companies. The main Federal Government assistance to the project were land grants of government owned land along with some funding. The establishment of the railroad meant that the latest and fastest technology solution (for it's time) would link the West Coast to the Midwest. No longer was the only way to get to California via clipper ship around the Horn or by horse / wagon - journey's measured in weeks / months. This project is neither a comparison or a justification for California's High Speed Rail initiative.
Brown also expressed his contempt for those, like me, who oppose this project...."It is part of the reason we can't get anything done in the state. You don't make an omelet unless you break the egg" referencing to those who say the project will destroy businesses, farms, and displace homes. But left unsaid were addressing the concerns of those who oppose the price tag and the unrealistic business plan.
Even the liberal editorial board of the Washington Post sees the stupidity of spending about $100 billion on this transportation project - particularly when neither the Feds or the State have the money to pay for it.
This isn't about creating jobs. The project has no private investor interest because it is not a viable plan or approach to solve something that isn't even a real problem facing Californians. It's not even about breaking eggs, Mr. Governor. This is about breaking the bank and spending money we don't have for a project we don't need while we ignore the real fiscal problems in the State.
My conclusion, "That's why this project, if permitted to continue, will become one of the biggest and most expensive flops in the history of the US and California."
Last Thursday, California Governor Jerry Brown said he would formally request the State Legislature to approve billions of dollars for the construction of the High Speed Rail Network.
In addition to the billions that the State will have to fund, this project is also dependent on nearly $50B to come from the Federal Government in addition to billions needed to come from private investors....investors who have thus far expressed no real interest in the program.
The irresponsibility of this decision is astounding. Both the Federal Government and California have major fiscal challenges related to excessive spending. The Feds now run regular annual deficits of over $1 trillion - adding over $4 trillion to the national debt in just 3 years of the Obama Administration. Our national debt is almost equal to our annual GDP and the country is facing another credit downgrade because it cannot cut $1.2 trillion from the next 10 years of expenditures. California is in the same bad shape. Revenues coming into the state this year are running $1.5 billion short of forecasts while the state's spending is $1.7 billion above projected levels. The current year's budget shortfall for California is $25 billion dollars and we're projected to run deficits of more than $20 billion through 2016 at least. None of these state numbers include any of the costs associated with the rail network.
Governor Brown says that these costs are 'manageable' because they are across a 23 year construction period for the full project. Costs trebled in just 3 years, so we're to expect that costs would not continue to escalate across the full 23 years of the project - or that it would only take 23 years to do the project? We're also being asked to believe that by 2030, tiny Merced California will be loading more passengers onto this network per day than Amtrak does per day today through it's busiest station - Penn Station in New York City?
If I get on Southwest.com and check airfares for a Friday departure from Los Angeles to San Francisco next month, I can get airfares as low as $49 one way....with most web fares in the $89 range. I can drive from my home to San Francisco in about 6 hours and it would cost me about $50 for gas.
Compare these to the $81 fare (today's dollars) for the fare of the high speed train. An hour and third by air versus three and a half or so by rail. Where's my incentive to go by rail? California's millions are supposed to force me to go by rail because roads and airports will be so crowded and overloaded?! How many more millions of Californians are expected in the next decade - a state that is starting to lose population because of it's business climate?
Brown said, "Lincoln built the transcontinental railroad during the Civil War, and we built the Golden Gate Bridge during the Great Depression" as a justification for undertaking this initiative.
President Obama has also used a similar statement as a justification for certain projects. Both are taking liberties with history to promote their agenda. The transcontinental railroad, constructed between 1863 and 1869 was primarily done by two private companies. The main Federal Government assistance to the project were land grants of government owned land along with some funding. The establishment of the railroad meant that the latest and fastest technology solution (for it's time) would link the West Coast to the Midwest. No longer was the only way to get to California via clipper ship around the Horn or by horse / wagon - journey's measured in weeks / months. This project is neither a comparison or a justification for California's High Speed Rail initiative.
Brown also expressed his contempt for those, like me, who oppose this project...."It is part of the reason we can't get anything done in the state. You don't make an omelet unless you break the egg" referencing to those who say the project will destroy businesses, farms, and displace homes. But left unsaid were addressing the concerns of those who oppose the price tag and the unrealistic business plan.
Even the liberal editorial board of the Washington Post sees the stupidity of spending about $100 billion on this transportation project - particularly when neither the Feds or the State have the money to pay for it.
This isn't about creating jobs. The project has no private investor interest because it is not a viable plan or approach to solve something that isn't even a real problem facing Californians. It's not even about breaking eggs, Mr. Governor. This is about breaking the bank and spending money we don't have for a project we don't need while we ignore the real fiscal problems in the State.
Friday, November 11, 2011
VDH - From Herman Cain to Blue Wall Street
One of my favorite modern authors, essayists, and commentators today is Victor Davis Hanson.
From writing about history, linking the experiences and lessons from the ancient Greeks or Romans to the current times, or providing a viewpoint towards modern politics on an international, national, or even state (California), VDH will make one think about the topic being presented regardless of one's political ideology or beliefs.
VDH writes and contributes to both the National Review and PJ Media with regular columns and essays. I will be highlighting many of these from both sources because they are usually exceptionally good. This week's essay for PJ Media, News Behind the News, exceeds that high bar.
To discover a fine wine, one needs to taste the wine first. Here's a taste of VDH's take on the 'News Behind the News' regarding the Occupy movement....
Another common topic for Professor Hanson is the discussion and debate around illegal immigration. VDH authored a book I highly recommend on this topic, Mexifornia. In the same essay listed above, here is his observation around the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to illegal immigration...
As I often say about the columns and essays from Victor Davis Hanson - Read it all. In fact, read all of his columns and essays. I believe you will find them as compelling and thought provoking as I do.
From writing about history, linking the experiences and lessons from the ancient Greeks or Romans to the current times, or providing a viewpoint towards modern politics on an international, national, or even state (California), VDH will make one think about the topic being presented regardless of one's political ideology or beliefs.
VDH writes and contributes to both the National Review and PJ Media with regular columns and essays. I will be highlighting many of these from both sources because they are usually exceptionally good. This week's essay for PJ Media, News Behind the News, exceeds that high bar.
To discover a fine wine, one needs to taste the wine first. Here's a taste of VDH's take on the 'News Behind the News' regarding the Occupy movement....
A Robert Rubin, George Soros, Franklin Rains or Jim Johnson can find insider ways to make tens of millions, regardless of the health of their corporation or the ethics of their conduct—and apparently expect to face little popular scrutiny, given their liberal fides. None of their pictures will show up on placards at Occupy Wall Street protests. You see, we live in an age where the biggest recipient of Goldman Sachs and BP cash, indeed the most successful Wall Street fundraiser in presidential history, who alone renounced public financing of presidential general election campaigns, can himself politick as an anti-Wall Street, anti-corporate jet, anti-“millionaires and billionaires” man of the people. What does Barack Obama do when he meets his own targets at the back nine on Martha’s Vineyard? Smile and say, “Nothing personal,” as he invites them over to a $50,000 a plate fundraiser?
The charge that many financial institutions are amoral may be true, but the charge that they are logical reflections of conservative greed is often a lie. Indeed, Wall Street is more deeply embedded within the Ivy League, and within the New York-Washington liberal nexus, than among the sorts who show up at a Tea Party rally. Exactly what financial brilliance earned Jamie Gorelick, a Clinton apparatchik, a $26 million take at Fannie Mae, as it imploded and nearly wrecked the country? Did she give back to the Fed any of her lucre? What sort of populist was a Sen. Chris Dodd (of Dodd-Frank reform fame) who used his office for low-interest personal loans? How in the world did Rahm Emanuel end up making $16 million as a “banker”—what financial genius had he previously shown, what Harvard MBA did he earn? How did Barney Frank go from a demagogue demanding no-background loans for the supposedly underprivileged overnight to a concerned legislator pontificating, after the fall, that renting for some might be preferable?
So until I see posters of a Gorelick or Rains in Oakland, I don’t put much stock in the occupy protests.
Another common topic for Professor Hanson is the discussion and debate around illegal immigration. VDH authored a book I highly recommend on this topic, Mexifornia. In the same essay listed above, here is his observation around the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to illegal immigration...
“Illegal immigration” is not about illegal immigration. I would have thought the issue was only about poverty, until realizing that $40-50 billion a year leave the U.S. in remittances to Latin America, in many cases from those who use American subsidies to free up cash to send home. It is not quite about moral justice, given that the U.S. is in near recession with millions of citizens out of work and whose earning power in the Southwest was eroded by cheaper workers here illegally. Nor is Mexico innocent, but by design seeks to export its own impoverished to win remittances, ease the burden of paying for social services, and build an expatriate community more sympathetic to Mexico the longer and farther it is away from it.
Instead, illegal immigration concerns most advocates not in the abstract sense of changing the law for all, but only in the concrete—solely in the sense of illegal immigration from Latin America in general, and Mexico in particular. In essence, the argument is that a common ethnic tie trumps federal law in a fashion that no others should dare emulate. Even the staunchest advocate of open borders would oppose 3,000 from Kenya or Chad landing in freighters on the American coast and demanding amnesty. Apparently, there is some sort of notion that past history or present ethnic solidarity privileges a distortion of the immigration law to such an extent as to render it ineffective. In other words, advocacy for blanket amnesty and open borders hinges on no one else taking up such an offer except those from Mexico and Latin America: there can be only so much controlled chaos before things get uncontrollably chaotic.
As I often say about the columns and essays from Victor Davis Hanson - Read it all. In fact, read all of his columns and essays. I believe you will find them as compelling and thought provoking as I do.
Saturday, November 5, 2011
California's Bullet Train Folly
Three years ago, California voters agreed to support the development of a High Speed Rail network to run from Los Angeles to San Francisco. The estimate at that time for the total cost of the project was $33 billion. The main feature was the concept of a bullet train that could wisk passengers between California's largest cities in under 3 hours or so and do so more competitively than via air travel. The plan was seen as one offering multiple benefits - jobs for the construction of the rail line, jobs for the operation of the rail line, and economic benefitst that would offer a positive return on the investment as well as covering the operational costs.
However, there were a number of shortcomings in the plan. Many of these are highlighted by California's Legislative Analyst's Office, a non-partisan fiscal and policy advisory group. The route was uncertain and right of way would need to be purchased. Environmental and other details needed to still be worked on. There was no real financial model for the operation or profitability of the rail line let alone if the system would need passenger subsidies as the Amtrak system needs.
Despite all of these, the California High Speed Rail Authority, a government created agency tasked with the construction and operation pressed forward to build the network. Assisting financially was the US Government, with $3.6 billion already transferred, and a total level of support approaching nearly $19 billion. The balance of funds, beyond the state bond issue and the federal assistance, was anticipated to be raised from private investors and partners. Very few of these have stepped forward.
On November 1, 2011, the California High Speed Rail Authority reported in their latest financial projection, the costs for the construction of the network from Los Angeles to San Francisco has nearly tripled - increasing from around $33 billion to just over $98 billion. In addition to the stunning cost increase, the timeframe to build the line would be a full decade longer than originally projected.
The fact that, within just three short years, the projections for the cost and delivery of this major infrastructure project have increased so dramatically is reflective of the incompetence of Government and Government agencies within California. But the story get's even worse than the annoucement from earlier this week.
On Thursday, Nov 3rd, the California High Speed Rail Authority filed an appropriation request with the State Legislature asking to draw on $6 billion ($3.3B Federal grants and $2.7B in CA bonds) to start construction of the line between 2 towns in California's Central Valley - Chowchilla and Bakersfield. This despite the lack of an economic model for passenger revenues which would preclude any need for subsidy or a viable plan to address the environmental / land ownership issues. Those are apparently seen as 'details' to be worked out after the network is built.
But buried within that request (and the above LA Times story) is something that trumps even that level of mismanagement by the CHSRA....that the system cost of $98 billion (triple the estimate 3 years ago) could increase by another $19 billion depending on the route and construction features!
However, there were a number of shortcomings in the plan. Many of these are highlighted by California's Legislative Analyst's Office, a non-partisan fiscal and policy advisory group. The route was uncertain and right of way would need to be purchased. Environmental and other details needed to still be worked on. There was no real financial model for the operation or profitability of the rail line let alone if the system would need passenger subsidies as the Amtrak system needs.
Despite all of these, the California High Speed Rail Authority, a government created agency tasked with the construction and operation pressed forward to build the network. Assisting financially was the US Government, with $3.6 billion already transferred, and a total level of support approaching nearly $19 billion. The balance of funds, beyond the state bond issue and the federal assistance, was anticipated to be raised from private investors and partners. Very few of these have stepped forward.
On November 1, 2011, the California High Speed Rail Authority reported in their latest financial projection, the costs for the construction of the network from Los Angeles to San Francisco has nearly tripled - increasing from around $33 billion to just over $98 billion. In addition to the stunning cost increase, the timeframe to build the line would be a full decade longer than originally projected.
The fact that, within just three short years, the projections for the cost and delivery of this major infrastructure project have increased so dramatically is reflective of the incompetence of Government and Government agencies within California. But the story get's even worse than the annoucement from earlier this week.
On Thursday, Nov 3rd, the California High Speed Rail Authority filed an appropriation request with the State Legislature asking to draw on $6 billion ($3.3B Federal grants and $2.7B in CA bonds) to start construction of the line between 2 towns in California's Central Valley - Chowchilla and Bakersfield. This despite the lack of an economic model for passenger revenues which would preclude any need for subsidy or a viable plan to address the environmental / land ownership issues. Those are apparently seen as 'details' to be worked out after the network is built.
But buried within that request (and the above LA Times story) is something that trumps even that level of mismanagement by the CHSRA....that the system cost of $98 billion (triple the estimate 3 years ago) could increase by another $19 billion depending on the route and construction features!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)