Saturday, November 06, 2010

A really dumb editorial cartoon

Does this liberal dupe think he's being clever?

Gee, when Obamacare mandates more and more get covered, no matter how non-essential and routine, why are the skyrocketing insurance premiums such a surprise?

Liberal saps can't admit that skyrocketing premiums are a *consequence* of the Obamacare passage.

Q: What do we insure against? A: Major financial catastrophe.

NOT out of pocket routine costs.

Imagine what your car insurance would cost if routine oil changes were paid by insurers, rather than out of pocket. There would be $200 oil changes rather than $40 ones, too. That is what happens when 3rd parties and other indirect agents pay for something. All cost containment goes out the window.

Imagine what your car insurance would cost if every sap could go without it and then immediately sign up right after an accident. That is what all the caterwauling about "pre existing conditions" comes down to....

Routine and minor medical expenses *should not* be covered by Medi-Cal, or private insurance for that matter.

And please don't give me this nonsense about the out-of-pocket costs for birth control being too much. Young women spend far more each month on their cell phone bills.

Mentalities like this are precisely why medical insurance and medical costs skyrocket.

Friday, November 05, 2010

Obama Press conference: Speak slower, be condescending

How about that Obama press conference? So far Obama's major nod to defeat the other night is to speak slower as if we are all too dumb to understand his awesome statism.

Beyond that? He says he's looking forward to hear ideas from Republicans. Yeah, right. Just like when he said, "I won", and shot any GOP proposals about health insurance down. Difference this time...he didn't win.

He says answers aren't to be found on bumper sticker. THIS, from the Guy who coined "Yes we can".

Big Takeaway...Obama rejects notion that his policies were rejected by voters last night. Says his policies are not moving the nation backwards, rejects notion that was message of last night. It would have been much shorter and much more honest if he just said what he really wants to say, "Let me be clear, I'm still awesome. If you aren't smart enough to get that, it's on you not me."

He's not going the Clinton way. After the Great Political Upchuck of 1994, Bill Clinton realized that the Far Left Way wasn't going to work. He sacked the most leftist of his advisers (does anybody remember the radical Ms. Achtenberg, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Elders, Mr. Reich, Ms. Shalala? All of whom had to leave under clouds of scandal and disgust) and Billy Jeff put in pragmatic types as replacements. In the end, although loathsome to many Conservatives on a personal level, Billy Jeff did a couple of downright Conservative acts: (1) welfare curtailment and reform, and (2) cutting the capital gains tax rates in half, from 28/20% short/long to 15/10%, fueling the investment boom of the mid to late 1990s. The Obamunists have undone the former under ARRA, which extends unemployment and other benefits indefinitely, and the Obamunists are poised to undo the latter next year.

But Bill Clinton wasn't all about Leftist Marxism. Bill Clinton was all about--Bill Clinton.

Obama at 1:20: "Let's not relitigate the past." Obama at 1:24: "We already had a large deficit, which I inherited." (and which Obama octupled!)

2nd question..."Hey, you're really not taking any responsibility here. Should voters think you "don't get it"???". Here's where the Obamunist petulance starts to show. He's basically saying, "aw, it was tough and people don't get how awesome I am". He also said they did so much because it was an emergency. Gee, governments never justify power grabs under the guise of an 'emergency' or anything.

3rd question...About that repealing health care thing and starting over. Obama says, let's not re-fight the last two years, let's move on to more awesome stuff. Yeah, good luck with that. Shockingly, he just doesn't get it.

4th question...You know that more big spending for jobs is history, right? So what are you going to do? Answer...pretty much the same as what he did before. He's just running down his same old list of projects for like the 5th time. He just doesn't get it....taking from the productive to make work for the unproductive *still* doesn't work. 
There was more, but I stopped watching.

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Election Post-Mortem: Requiem For California

"Jack The State" -- This Toilet Cal.

I shouldn't be too despairing, because on a National level, the Demunists were indeed defeated and the Commiecrats were indeed crushed. And even in the races where the GOP candidate was an amateur and didn't win, the message sent was a very good one. Meanwhile, the Obamunist doubles down on the condescending, which insures an even brighter 2012:
Had not some zealots talked of possible 90-to-100-seat gains, the Democrats would be in greater shock today at the near-historic 60+ House pick-up, along with a stunning near sweep of state legislatures and governorships, as well as gains in the Senate — and all a mere 21 months after the beginning of hope and change. The idea that we are going to copy EU socialism is dead. So is Keynesian massive borrowing. So is the promised second wave of Obamism, such as cap-and-trade and blanket amnesty. Obama’s supporters can brag that erstwhile absolutely safe senior Democratic senators like Boxer and Reid managed to get reelected, but they must understand that Obama’s vision and his method of enacting it simply turned off the vast majority of the country.
However, the California election results you saw on November 2nd show that the State of California is irretrievably flushing itself down the toilet.

California's most dire financial problems right now are related to public-employee obligations (pensions and healthcare). The power of public-employee unions in California have held the State and local governments in thrall for years, and with the election of Jerry Brown as Governor and the return of nearly all Demunist incumbents to the Legislature, the people of California have opted to spray kerosene on a blaze that was already threatening to overwhelm them.

Jerry Brown was the one who ensured that public employee unions would dominate the state in the first place. He signed the "fair share" fee law on his way out of his first term. Thus even non-members--of which there were and are many--had to pay up to the union. In a subsequent worker lawsuit evidence revealed that much of that money went to PACs, not union support of its members.

The return of a wretch like Boxer and the bogus global warming fraud of No on Prop 23 are just icing on the excrement cake.
Well, the die has been cast, California. Too many of you have placed your fate into the hands of a political party and a governmental machine that cares for nothing except what it can squeeze out of you to keep the party-train rolling. There will come a time in the not-too-distant future when you will have cause to bitterly regret what happened last night, and to wonder when the disaster truly became unavoidable. Well, I know: it happened last night when too many of you elected Jerry Brown as governor. Too many of you chose to kowtow to the labor unions; too many chose to believe comforting lies rather than the horrible truth.
OK, that's what happened, by why did it happen?

Part of it is demographic--and the irony of Cold War Victory. California always had a leftist element, but in the 1990's the defense workers and military personnel who always more than offset them folded up and / or left the state for the most part. Meanwhile, a growing underclass predisposed to welfare statism came up from South Of The Border (Thanks Karl Rove, Jack Kemp and George Bush! How did that Hispandering work out for you???) The electronics industry went from productive hardware manufacture to "creative" graphic arts. Leftist gayness, once confined to San Francisco, spread its spores up and down the state. (Nope, I don't care about private lives, but I do care about the kind of public policy that always seems to come from it).

Victor Davis Hanson describes the California of today:
The state will continue to descend into a pyramidal society. On top there is the wealthy, leftist coastal elite from Napa to Hollywood, which is seemingly immune from the effects of high taxes and regulation (and wants more "green" laws, gay marriage, abortion, and therapeutic bromides). The top of the pyramid is in league with a growing underclass dependent upon a huge entitlement industry; this coalition thus favors more taxes, entitlements, unionized public employees, open borders, etc. Meanwhile, a squeezed middle-class private sector is slowly being strangled, shutting down, and leaving.
The Welfare Check Left people and the Trust Fund Left people have de facto teamed up and are beating the Paycheck Right people in this state. The game is rigged against the producers of wealth in this state. If you produce wealth in this state, here is a short list of what is against you:
1) Many if not most public employees, and their whole union apparatus, will vote against you.
2) Most employees of TV stations, newspapers, and most radio stations. They vote against you and encourage others to vote against you.
3) Most employees of every college and university. They too, vote against you and encourage others to as well.
4) 90% of one ethnic minority and some 60% of another will vote against you no matter what because you are not a Democrat. The former is not growing, in fact it might even be shrinking, but the latter is growing by leaps and bounds.
5) Some 70% of federal district judges will rule against you each and every time, no matter what, if the Left government is on the other side--regardless of the law.
6) Some 30% to 40% of the general public as a whole will vote against you no matter what each and every election.

The question is not "why keep fighting", the question is: "Why do we keep playing their game?" But that leads to a sad conclusion . . . .

Part of it is also a duped electorate. Prop 25 is a turd cake but the ads only talked about the frosting -- the part that said that those nasty legislators would be punished by withholding their pay for each day the budget was overdue. It kills me that so much of the electorate fell for this deception, but it did. I'll bet less than 10% of the voters (excluding public union members, of course) ever had a clue about the real purpose of Prop 25. The sponsorship of "a coalition of firefighters, police officers and schoolteachers" should have been a clue that there was a massive union bait and switch tax money giveaway in the works.

But there were also serious tactical errors in the GOP. Meg Whitman should have known the illegal alien hired help issue would come up, and Carly Fiorina should have pointed out who really exported the jobs. Carly was also short on specifics.
And amateur politicians like Meg, Carly and Ah-nold are probably part of the problem. Election after election, Californians get a choice between some outsider wealthy actor or billionaire CEO who thinks they can run themselves a tidy little state, and a leftist. Billionaire CEOs seem to be attracted to the turnaround challenge while real Conservative principles and real hard knuckle California politics are annoyances they dance around. What we need is a Tom McClintock like GOP legislator who fought in the trenches and rose up through the legislature, but alas, those lack the financial clout.

And then there were local follies. For example, in the 11th Congressional District, there was a splendid chance to remove a Weeniecrat Liberal,  Jerry McNerney, and replace him with a solid Republican, David Harmer. But that wasn't good enough for the John Bircher fools in the "American Independent Party", and they threw their 3rd party spoiler into the race, with predictable results. Way to go, AIP! Thanks for giving the Left a win!
Jerry McNerney (Dem) 115,361 - 48.0%
David Harmer (Rep) 112,703 - 46.9%
David Christensen (AI) 12,439 - 5.1%

And in the state Attorney General race, that goes for you Losertarian Party fools too! How does it feel for you saps to have put criminal coddling Commiecrat Kamala Harris in office?
Kamala D. Harris (Dem) 4,443,070 - 46.1%
Steve Cooley (Rep) 4,368,617 - 45.3%
Peter Allen (Grn) 258,880 - 2.7%
Timothy J. Hannan (Lib) 246,584 - 2.6% 
Diane Beall Templin (AI) 169,994 - 1.7%
Robert J. Evans (P+F) 160,426 - 1.6%

David Harmer and Steve Cooley were definitely not RINOs, by the way.

And isn't it funny how in a close race, subsequent recounts and later ballots *always* discover new Democrat votes? It is like ACORN and SEIU union goons manufacture fake ballots that will mysteriously appear and will all be for the Democrat....hmmm.....

On a local level, Arden Arcade had a chance to make their own destiny and improve themselves like Citrus Heights or Rancho Cordova did. Even if the Arden Arcadians subsequently made big mistakes in such an alternate universe, they would *still* improve their lot, just as the citizens of Elk Grove did. But sadly, too many allowed themselves to be frightened away from the opportunity.

Sadly, it wasn't just the Leftist fools who voted down Arden Arcade's potentially bright future. There were a lot of otherwise Right-thinking people who bought into the slogan that "less government means less government", forgetting that *more local* government is ultimately less government.

The Arden Arcadians may be annexed by Sacramento proper, and then they can be lorded over by the Lexus Liberals of Land Park and/or the "Fabulous Forties". Then again, the Lexus Libs might reason that annexing the Arden Arcadians might bring in too many of the "less government" conservative voters that would upset their liberal fiefdom. So instead, they might leave Arden Arcade to rot in its unincorporated County status, as Arden Arcade slowly becomes more and more run-down like North Highlands.

Either way, Arden Arcade really missed an opportunity to create a vibrant thriving community.

Tuesday, November 02, 2010

California Propositions

Prop 19: Legalizing Pot -- Symbolic YES.

I say symbolic because even if this initiative passes, it will not happen. It will immediately get tied up in litigation, both state and federal, that will go on for years. So as a result, both the nightmare scenarios outlined by opponents and the alleged increased revenues and decreased Mexican drug cartel activity outlined by proponents simply are not going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

I actually have respect for those who vote NO. My nephew told me that he thinks society has enough problems with alcohol, and do we really want to have a larger pot problem? From someone who has had a drinking problem, and who watched his pothead father graduate to methamphetamine, this is not a frivolous point.

The proposed law also provides that "no person shall be discriminated against or denied any right or privilege" for pot use, inviting a lawsuit every time an employer tries to require a drug test, for example.

There is also the obvious question: Do we really want a legally dumbed down society to the point where "the munchies" are the topic of discussion? I rather regret most of the times I spent getting stoned, they being in adolescent angst and all that.

Nevertheless, I am of the mind to vote YES, simply because with "medicinal" marijuana, we already have a fairly large exception by which thousands of people in this state are toking away, and probably passing it on to the non-afflicted. Our current anti-marijuana enforcement efforts are tantamount to telling Katie to bar the door after all the horses have already left the stables. To have such an unenforceable law is to invite contempt for the law in general.

As for the concerns that marijuana leads its users on to harder drugs, here there is an undeniable element of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Those who seek out marijuana tend to get it from those involved with the manufacture or sale of other illegal substances, such as methamphetamine. If it were legally grown and sold, as tobacco is, that would not be the case.

Finally, I am increasingly of the mind that we should "Legalize It, Then Demonize It", much as has been done with tobacco. And smoking tobacco has declined among the American population, relative to previous generations. Youth are still more likely to smoke than older adults, but that was true with prior generations as well. There is a very simple reason for this. Cigarettes and alcohol, for teenagers who wish to seem more grown up, are easy and false outward symbols of maturity, whereas genuine adult recognition and earned achievement are much harder to come by. (Nope, "Joe Camel" had nothing to do with youth smoking, "The Marlboro Man", however, probably did.)

I am reminded of the Wickersham Commission of 1929-1931, which, while acknowledging that Prohibition was very problematic and ineffective, would not urge its repeal.

Franklin P. Adams, a columnist for the now defunct New York World newspaper (from which the term "World Series" comes, as the newspaper was the original sponsor of the American Baseball Championship Game) wrote a ditty that mocked the government's report:
Prohibition is an awful flop.
We like it.
It can't stop what it's meant to stop.
We like it.
It's left a trail of graft and slime,
It don't prohibit worth a dime,
It's filled our land with vice and crime.
Nevertheless, we're for it.
And this kind of ditty is as appropriate now as it was in 1931.

Prop 20: Congressional Redistricting. (Symbolic?) YES.

Prop 20 extends the redistricting reform applied to State Senate and Assembly districts by previously passed Prop 11 to Congressional districts. Congressional districts are currently drawn by politicians in the Legislature. This measure would take control of Congressional redistricting away from the Legislature, giving it instead to a citizens commission.

Prop. 20 would end political gerrymandering. It’s widely agreed by good government advocates that politicians draw districts for political advantage, creating safe seats for incumbent politicians and protecting the majority party’s position of dominance.

This finishes the work we began in 2008 to get redistricting decisions away from self-interested state legislators and into the hands of a bi-partisan commission, to reduce the gerrymandering rampant in California politics. The original initiative was just for California state districts - this simply adds the Congressional ones.

I suspect this might face legal challenges, so it *might* be symbolic.

I really would like to see districts that respected municipal and county boundaries, trying to keep first counties, then cities, then neighborhood districts, together as much as possible, and were not bizarrely drawn. Obviously, a mega county like LA will have many representatives in it, but let us try to have districts that don't carve up established municipalities, established neighborhoods, or ZIP Codes.

Have you ever used Wikipedia to see what your Congressional District looks like on a map? You might be surprised, infuriated, or amused. My own district looks like this, and it is actually one of the less bizarre ones.

Most other California districts, like this, and this, and this, and this, have no respect for city or county boundaries whatsoever. But the real champ of gerrymandering is this one. To "represent" certain liberal coastal enclaves, it is 200 miles long and in some places only 200 yards wide!

And what do those districts have in Common, except for mine? DEMOCRATS. Suppose the districts were drawn more with realistic city and county boundaries in mind. Might California be a little more balanced? I think so.

Meanwhile, it is time to boycott "The League Of Women Voters", who claim this:
"Tucked into the proposed law are problems that would make it harder to protect California's diverse neighborhoods."
In other words, The League Of Women Voters favors the kinds of ethnic Bantustan districts that allow corrupt creeps like Maxine "Kill Whitey and Free OJ" Waters to continue to get re-elected time and time again. Shame on you, League of Women Voters. Non-partisan, my fanny. Not anymore anyway.

Prop 21: Robbing Drivers To Pay Parks - NO.

Right now, state park users pay a nominal fee that helps pay for upkeep, assuring that those who use our state parks help pay for them. This measure ends shifts the cost to the rest of us by imposing an $18 per car tax increase whether we use the parks or not. Stealing money from highway travelers used to be called "highway robbery." Now it's called "Proposition 21."

Moreover, there is no guarantee that there will not be "bait and switch". Funds raised ostensibly for parks still may not be used to fix the parks, but may instead be raided by wasteful spending politicians to squander on other unrelated pet projects.

Frankly, in a time of budgetary woes, it may be time to reconsider and sell off those parks which have very low use, which have to be plowed or grazed by Cattle periodically to prevent wildfires, and lack facilities for campers. Coe State Park, in the Diablo Ranges east of San Jose, comes to mind. Originally one ranch gifted to the State, it has annexed most neighboring ranches and grown many times its original size, but it still lacks the most basic of park facilities and is inaccessible to most Californians.

Prop 22: State Hands Off Local Government Tax Money - YES.

Prop 22 is designed to protect local funds from being borrowed by the state government. In recent years, as the state has faced massive budget shortfalls, Sacramento politicians have partially made up for these shortfalls by borrowing funds from local government treasuries. Funds borrowed included money that local governments would otherwise have been available for services including transportation and public safety.

Sacramento politicians have raided their treasuries resulting in layoffs of police officers and fire fighters and hindering plans for transit projects that were supposed to be paid for with gas tax revenue. Instead, the Sacramento political class robbed local governments, forcing others to pay for their reckless spending and misplaced priorities. Prop 22 protects local funds from further raids by the state government ensuring funds are used for those local projects they were intended for, and not to bail out state level politicians.

This takes a giant leap toward restoring local government independence and protecting our transportation taxes by prohibiting state raids on local and transportation funds. Local governments are hardly paragons of virtue, but local tax revenues should remain local.

Many people whose opinions I respect oppose this initiative, on the grounds that it will make it harder for state authorities to defund local "redevelopment agencies" who abuse their eminent domain powers. But I think that is a problem of property rights, not of local control.

Prop 23: End The Man-Made Global Warming Hoax - YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In 2006, Sacramento's rocket-scientists enacted AB 32, imposing draconian restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions (yes, that's the stuff you exhale).

They promised to save the planet from alleged "man made global warming" and open a cornucopia of new "green" jobs. Since then, California's unemployment rate has shot far beyond the national unemployment rate and the earth has continued to warm and cool as it has for billions of years.

Prop 23 merely holds the "Environmentalists" to their promise: it suspends AB 32 until unemployment stabilizes at or below its pre-AB 32 level. For this the leftist propagandists call it "anti-science".

Gee, it sure is "science" when the global warming "scientists" have been caught red-handed adjusting / fabricating data to fit the "computer models". If the data doesn't fit the models, make it fit! And when they get caught doing this for decades, they merely assert that "the science is settled!" that much louder.

It has become fashionable to re-label "global warming" as "Climate Change" to account for lower than normal temperatures and Little Ice Ages in recent decades. And that in a sense is true--over time the climate is always slowly changing. But those of us who remember the 1970's claims that industrial man, by stirring up sun-blocking particulate matter and putting more water vapor into the atmosphere, was going to cause a "New Ice Age", are skeptical.

Solar orbital cycles, sunspots, volcanic eruptions, natural ocean current shifts, and massive natural non-industrial sources of Carbon Dioxide, water vapor, and methane, all of which dwarf man's output, could not be reached for comment.

I am evenly split over whether these "scientists" and the politicians who trumpet them are sinister liars, or whether they are sincere "true believers" just looking for a "religion for the Godless." But either way, they do have motives: more research grant money at best, crypto-totalitarians looking to take away our mobility and therefore freedom at worst, and those looking for another excuse to tax us somewhere in between.

The disgusting propaganda opposing this initiative makes me ill. For starters, we have the vilification of two "Texas" oil companies, Valero and Tesoro. Gee, Valero and Tesoro between them operate four major refineries in the State of California, oilfields in the Bakersfield area, and have hundreds of service station franchises here. Outsiders? Really? Because they have their HQ's in Texas? To escape the punitive and business bashing California State Taxes, who wouldn't? Meanwhile, the aforementioned and exposed climate change hoaxers seem to come from around the world.

On a related note, it is time to boycott "The American Lung Association", who claim this initiative "causes pollution", even though this initiative doesn't lower a single standard for emissions of *real* pollutants (such as nitric oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons, the stuff that actually makes up "smog"). Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Plants like it.

Shame on you, American Lung Association. From here on, any Christmas Seals, Easter Seals, or other American Lung Association fundraising letters featuring the poor asthmatic kids go right in the trash. Not one red cent to a corrupted organization. Not. One. Red. Cent.

Prop 24: The So-Called "Tax Fairness Act" - NO!!!!!!!!

Prop 24 repeals recently enacted changes in the tax code that were designed to somewhat ease the tax burden on California businesses.

Prop 24 raises taxes on California in three ways. First, Prop 24 ends a practice called “elective single sales factor” that allows businesses to choose between basing their tax burden on sales or property and payroll, giving them the ability to use whichever formula results in a lower obligation.

Second, Prop 24 ends a tax credit designed for research and development that allows companies to shift tax credits between profitable and unprofitable operations. Because research units do not usually earn profits directly, the ability to shift credits between units assists research and development units.

Finally, this proposition ends the practices of “net operating loss carryback,” a tax procedure that allows businesses to use previous tax years operating losses to reduce their liability in a current profitable year.

Various Democrats in the state are calling these "corporate tax giveaways". Giveaways? As if those revenues are theirs to give? Really, the Soviet Politboro-like arrogance of these people is something to behold. And that is why I call those various Democrats, "Commiecrats" or "Demunists".

Ultimately the reality is that for the most part the businesses don't end up paying the business taxes - we do. And when that can't happen, the businesses flee the state and are accused of "exporting jobs".

Business taxes can only be paid in three ways:
1. by us as consumers (through higher prices),
2. by us as employees (through lower wages) and
3. by us as investors (through lower earnings on our 401k's).

Proposition 24 is a jobs tax that will make unemployment worse when the ranks of the jobless are already at record highs. California’s business taxes are currently one of the highest in the nation and California has been ranked by numerous studies as one of the worst places to do business. Imposing billions in new taxes on employers would make the state an even more inhospitable environment for jobs and economic growth, increasing the exodus of jobs out of California and discouraging new investment.

Prop 25: Simple majority for new budgets - NO
Prop 25 allows a budget to be passed with a simple majority rather than the currently required 2/3 vote. The proposition also eliminates the power of referendum on the budget and budget related bills, making budgets take effect immediately upon passage with no opportunity for voters to stop implementation.

If the Legislature fails to pass a budget on time, Prop. 25 requires that legislators forfeit their salaries and living expense allowance. That is a nice gimmick to sell the proposition, but the fact is that all too many state politicians have independent fortunes beyond their salaries anyway. Governator Ah-nold served without pay for years.

Now in fairness, this initiative does not directly make it easier for the Powers That Be to raise taxes--that would still require a 2/3 vote (unless that tax is relabeled a "fee"; see Proposition 26 below). However, this initiative does make it easier for the Powers That Be to spend money--and raising taxes follows that, surely as night follows day.

Prop 25 also does not place any restrictions on what can be included in a budget related bill, so politicians could also more easily pass other legislation currently requiring a super majority simply by inserting it into budget related bills. Super majorities are currently required for the passage of taxes, placing bond proposals on the ballot, and for imposing new environmental regulations on the Delta.

So in other words, while this Proposition does not directly challenge the 2/3 rule for new taxes, it is a stalking horse for ultimately overturning that rule. Their ultimate goal is removing the ‘super majority’ vote on the budget and raising your taxes.

Prop 26: Subjecting New Fees to 2/3 vote - YES

Prop 26 requires that new state fees be passed with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature and establishes the right of citizens to approve, either by two-thirds or majority, local taxes. California currently requires new taxes to be approved with a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, but only requires a simple majority vote to pass levies defined as “fees.” This has encouraged politicians to define new taxes as “fees” to ease passage. Prop 26, with limited exceptions, imposes the same requirements now applied to taxes to fees.

Under the Sinclair Paint vs. California Board of Equalization Court decision (1997), virtually any tax may be increased by majority vote as long as it is called a "fee," gutting the 2/3 vote requirement in the state constitution to raise taxes.

Surprise, surprise, surprise, over the last decade there have been many more fees. Billions in hidden taxes may be imposed on Californians simply by redefining them as "fees".

The proliferation of fees have added to California’s high tax anti-business climate. Closing this legal loophole by making the passage of fees no easier than the passage of taxes would protect jobs and California taxpayers. Prop. 26 rescinds the Sinclair Paint decision, restores the Constitution, and calls a tax a tax--as it should be.

Prop 27: Abolishing Citizens Redistricting Panel - NO!!!!

Prop 27 rolls back the previously passed Prop 11. which took the power to draw Legislative districts away from the Legislature and gave the responsibility to a newly formed Citizens Redistricting Commission, consisting of four Democrats, four Republicans, and three independents. It hasn't even been fully implemented yet, and already the gerrymandering forces want to undo it! Prop 27 would once again allow legislators to draw their own districts, and includes a “poison pill” provision that would kill Prop 20 if Prop 27 passes with more votes.

Monday, November 01, 2010

November 2010: The Spirit of 1994--Only Greater!

At first, I thought to myself that I have to blog more than just a theme of "Defeat the Demunists, Crush the Commiecrats, Vote Tea Party Republican or die!" It couldn't be *that* simple, could it?

But really, this time, it IS that simple. It's even simpler than that. Too many of us have been had. Too many of us, without realizing it, voted in the most Soviet leaning and frankly un-American government in American History. The old school "Boll Weevils" and "Blue Dogs" in the Democrat Party, who used to prudently curb the excesses of the leftist Democrats, are just about extinct. More sectors of the American economy, from auto manufacturing to banking to insurance to medicine, have been nationalized, expropriated, or otherwise commandeered in peacetime than ever before, in just two short years. By contrast, the governmental excesses of the "New Deal" took 12 years and the necessity of a World War to get that severe, and the excesses of that were rolled back.

When I was a student at Berkeley, I used to shudder at the thought of a large enough number of the pseudo-academic "professors" ever getting into positions to make public policy. Well, over the last few years, a large enough number have--and the results are not pleasing. I am reminded of why I chose NOT to go into academia, as one dissenting professor who did sadly but humorously relates.

Domestically, those who decried the deficits spent by the previous administration in eight years, decided to spend several times that amount in eight months. And for what? For a "fiscal stimulus" given the Orwellian name of the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" (ARRA), that spends nearly a trillion dollars, as of now just a bit more than the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts put together, a "Stimulus" that was for the most part nothing more than welfare payments. Here and there we do get another freeway lane.

But I can tell you what happened to much of California's ARRA money: it has kept the state running for the last four months. Until recently, California had no budget agreed upon, meaning that for July, August, September and October, no state monies could be appropriated. Yet the Department of Health Care Services kept on paying out the state's "Medi-CAL" programs, and how much of that went to illegal aliens and their children I wonder, with ARRA federal money. And there are many more California State agencies, bureaus, and departments.

So we have an unsustainable federal program, paying for unsustainable state programs. In decades past, Federal "Fiscal Stimulus" at least built real things, and gave us awesome Hoover and Grand Coulee Dams, Interstate Highways and rockets to the Moon. Today? It gives us environmental impact reports for projects that enviro-weenies will only block, that will realistically serve no one, and will never get built. The proposed "high speed rail" boondoggle is a case in point.

Moreover, this unprecedented spending binge has not worked because it cannot work: government cannot inject dollars into the economy until it has first taken those dollars out of the economy, either by taxation, by currency devaluation/inflation, or by borrowing from the very pool of capital that would otherwise been available to investors in real productive enterprise.

This is NOT stimulus, it is redistribution of wealth from producers to parasites, and it clearly does not create real jobs. It creates a further dependence upon government that cannot be sustained.

Meanwhile, the investors and entrepreneurs, who could get the economy going again, are sitting it out and biding their time. And why shouldn't they? The more the Obama Administration castigates insurers, businesses and doctors, the more it raises taxes on whatever profits they manage to earn, the more those who create wealth are sitting out, neither hiring nor lending. The result is that traditional self-interested profit-makers are locking up trillions of dollars in unspent talent, rather than using it to take risks and either lose money due to new red tape or see much of their profit largely confiscated through higher taxes.

And while the economy rots, the Obamunists want to condone the entry of more illegal aliens, even as entry level job wages plummet and teens find it harder to work than in the past. I was shocked when my teenage nieces told me that entry level jobs, which were there for the asking when I was their age, were not so easy to come by.

Then again, perhaps there is another theme to all of this: "We Need The Spirit of 1994--Only Greater!" After all, the Clinton administration initially went quite Leftist in 1993 and 1994.

But after the Great Political Upchuck of 1994, Bill Clinton realized this wasn't going to work. He sacked the most leftist of his advisers (does anybody remember the radical Ms. Achtenberg, Mr. Cisneros, Ms. Elders, Mr. Reich, Ms. Shalala? All of whom had to leave under clouds of scandal and disgust) and Billy Jeff put in pragmatic types as replacements. In the end, although loathsome to many Conservatives on a personal level, Billy Jeff did a couple of downright Conservative acts: (1) welfare curtailment and reform, and (2) cutting the capital gains tax rates in half, from 28/20% short/long to 15/10%, fueling the investment boom of the mid to late 1990s. The Obamunists have undone the former under ARRA, which extends unemployment and other benefits indefinitely, and the Obamunists are poised to undo the latter next year.

But Bill Clinton wasn't all about Leftist Marxism. Bill Clinton was all about--Bill Clinton.

Unfortunately, in President Obama, I see a much more leftist ideologue. This was best evidenced last summer in Cairo, when President Obama prostrated himself and America before Islam--in light of all that is going on in *that* religion--and falsely claimed certain historical achievements on the part of Islam — all the while outlining Western Civilization's shortcomings.

And he did this sort of thing at home too. Remember the condescending Pennsylvania "bitter clingers" speech, and the psychoanalysis of his own grandmother--who lovingly raised him while his father abandoned him and his bimbo mother went from academic fad to academic fad--accusing Grandma of alleged “typical white person” sort of racism? Remember his mentors such as the "Reverend" Jeremiah Wright, and Weather Underground veteran Bill Ayers?

When I heard the put-America-down rhetoric of Obama and his minions, I thought "Where had I heard that before? Oh my God, it can't be that he really absorbed and believed the Commie leftover pap from cretins like Frantz Fanon or Herbert Marcuse or the still living Communist scumbag Noam Chumpsky???

Evidently, yes. This is the "progressive" (sic) thought of unrealistic political ideals. The failure of the West to achieve the super ideal, despite the otherwise astonishing progress that has been made in the human condition, becomes the warrant for a hatred of Western culture that oozes from "progressive" politics, and that is eager to make the West the arch-villain responsible for global failure and suffering. As Obama and other Leftist cultural elites wallow in this masochistic guilt, the enemies of the West — first communism, and now jihadism — understand that this self-loathing is the sign of cultural decay, the dying spasms of a civilization that no longer has faith in the goodness of its foundational beliefs, and so no longer will fight for itself.

And all this crap, at home and abroad, led to the Tea Party Movement. This movement has taken up with the Republican Party, and in fact has in more than a few primaries purged the "Grand Old Party" of those Republicans who won't fight back hard enough, purged those Republicans who will "go along to get along", purged those who are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).

We aren't going quietly into a future of decline, appeasement, surrender, and a diminished future.

And we're tired of being called (blank)ist and (blank)ophobic or otherwise smeared for refusing to accept the decay.

I won't say *all* Democrat candidates are treasonous commie leftovers at this time, but to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, "I believe nine out of every ten are, and I will inquire closely in the case of the tenth. The nuttiest Bible-Thumper Republican is much better than the average Democrat."

Perhaps one day the "Boll Weevils" and "Blue Dogs" will make a comeback, but for now, they are nearly extinct.

OK, on to the candidates and propositions.

GOVERNOR: Meg Whitman

There is a theme song for Jerry Brown. Or, on a more sinister note, there is another one...

Meg wasn't my primary choice, but the dishonest smears against her, by that political whore Gloria Allred (how aptly named), have made me a fan.

Moreover, do we really want to return to Jerry Brown's "era-of-limits" - "small-is-beautiful" - "don't build things and people won't come", new-age nonsense? Do we really want criminal coddling judges like Rose Bird and Cruz Reynoso appointed again? Have we forgotten what that was like?

And I laugh at claims like "Meg is trying to buy the election." Boo hoo hoo. The only worse thing than buying an election is acting like it's an entitled birthright for a formerly young punk but now elderly member of an elite political family.


I have to laugh at Gavin Newsom's sleazy attacks against Abel Maldonado on the Tax Increasing issue. Yes, RINO Abel did sign onto a tax increase as part of a budget deal. However, for Gavin Newsom to make an issue out of that--is the cast iron pot calling the copper tea kettle a little burnt at the bottom.

And Gavin Newsom? Mr. Sanctuary City for the murderers? This smarmy clown? For real?


Four words: Photo Identification for voting. Damon Dunn supports, Debra Bowen opposes. Voter fraud anyone?

As for the boo-hoo-hoo nonsense about "minority voters being disenfranchised", Damon Dunn, who is African American and grew up modestly, might have something to say about that.

CONTROLLER: Tony Strickland

His opponent, John Chiang, tried to pretend he was above the Governor during the budget battle. Sorry, but the office of Controller isn't.

TREASURER: Mimi Walters

Good lord, is that corrupt fossil Bill Lockyer still shambling through the Capitol halls? Is he still pushing his shakedown lawsuits of automakers and gun manufacturing businesses? Since he is no longer Attorney General, no, thank goodness. But he is still as anti-self defense, and hence anti-freedom, as ever. And he has played "Musical Chairs" with state executive offices for too long.


From a "Sanctuary City" for those who go on to murder, to an unwillingness to push the death penalty on the scum who deserve it, his opponent, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, is a Bolshevik Bimbo in a city infamous for Bolshevik Bimbos like Boxer and Pelosi.


And again, the Democrat Iron Pot calls the Republican copper tea kettle a little burnt at the bottom! Assemblyman Mike Villines, like Abel Maldonado, did go wobbly and sign off on a tax increase as part of a budget deal. For this, sleazy Democrat Assemblyman Dave Jones, who never met a tax increase he didn't like, is trying to make hay. Please California don't fall for this.

US SENATOR: Carly Fiorina

I don't care if her tenure at Hewlett Packard was not so hot, *anyone* would be better than the (bleep bleep) Barbara Boxer. I will refrain from cursing, but she really makes the blood boil. And who can forget this clip?

What is really nauseating is listening to Boxer harp about how at HP Fiorina "exported" jobs. And Ma'am Boxer really doesn't get that her taxation and her mandates and her lawsuits and her business bashing drove the jobs out, does she? Wow.

India progressed only when it adopted free markets. People do not outsource 1-800 numbers to socialist "paradises", like Hugo Chavez's bandito Venezuela. The sad truth is, thanks to Barbara Boxer and her ilk, it is now better to do business in India than it is here.

Cheap labor, you say? Which begs the question of who drove up the cost of labor? Who did that? Boxer did. Taxation is a big part of the cost of labor.

When Boxer and her ilk have made business into something to be excessively taxed for their welfare state, they should not expect the businessmen and women to remain here. They should not expect them to stay in America and lose their money for the purpose of becoming the fodder of National Health Care. They should not expect them to produce, when production of goods and services is punished with ever higher statist demands. Do not ask, "Who is exporting the jobs?", Ma'am--You are.


My criteria here is how they voted to uphold or overturn Proposition 22 of 2000, which defined marriage by statute as only between a man and a woman, and how they voted on Proposition 8, which had to Amend the California Constitution after Judicial Piracy overturned Proposition 22.

I DON'T CARE if you think "Gay Marriage" is a good idea; there is NOTHING in the Constitution about it. The ultimate legal status of homosexual relationships (and yes, such relationships do merit some legal status) should be decided by the people, or by their elected representatives in the Legislature. I want The Rule Of Law, not The Rule Of The Anus. I want a representative republic, not judicial tyranny.

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye: YES

She wasn't there during the Gay Marriage brouhaha, but she would have voted to stop judicial tyranny. She was appointed to the Municipal Court by Deukmejian, the Superior Court by Pete Wilson and the Appellate Court by Schwarzenegger. She is opposed by the "Green" (Watermelon) Party, which means she must be good.

Ming W. Chin: YES

In the 4-3 decision on Proposition 22, he was one of the three trying to stop judicial tyranny. Likewise for Proposition 8, where fortunately he was in the majority.

Carlos R. Moreno: NO!!!

He is one of the judges who struck down Prop 22 and voted to do the same to Prop 8. He voted against the right to self defense, and against Prop 21 of 2000, which had tougher penalties on gang related crime.


This is a helpful site you can use, and this is another one. I do not always agree with them, they make the perfect the enemy of the good (see their votes on Ming Chin and Tani Cantil-Sakauye), but they are helpful.


Two words: Charter Schools. Groups of concerned parents form a public school for their children's particular needs. My ex-wife taught at one that focused on English immersion for Slavic immigrants. They work well and bring about better results. Larry Aceves supports them, Tom Torlakson, a teachers union stooge, blocks them.

STATE PROPOSITIONS: This post is getting really long, and those will come next time.