Thursday, November 4, 2010

I Don’t Feel Sorry for Californians Anymore

I used to feel sorry for Californians, myself included. I felt sorry for them because, with the exception of a couple of years in the early eighties, our beautiful state had been hijacked by the brain-dead Democrats who had been running things in Sacramento for more than four decades. These otherwise unemployables have been uniformly choosing the wrong tax and spend and governance and regulatory policies for even longer than I've lived here (34 years).

They have taken the best public educational system and trashed it. From what was on a par with any public school education in America just a generation ago, we have to now feel lucky there's a Louisiana, a Mississippi and an Alabama, or California would rank last out of the 50 states.

Every survey of business leaders over the past several years ranks California in the bottom two or three states in terms of friendliness to business formation and operation. Maybe that's why so few choose to now relocate or open branch operations here.

Our income taxes are the third-highest in America. Our sales taxes are fourth highest in the nation. Public employee and cop and fire unions are so gargantuan they're strangling our cities and our state with an unfunded pension bomb that's ready to explode in our collective faces. It's to the point that we now work for them, not the other way around. How was that allowed to happen?

Our roads and bridges infrastructure is decaying before our very eyes. Our once-vaunted Central Valley agriculture, which has produced more than 10% of all fruits and veggies in the nation for decades, is now a depression-era dustbowl because some commie pinko weenie in a black robe shut off their water in favor of the Delta Smelt. What's that, you ask? It's a little Anchovy-sized fish that this judge preferred over suffering, drought-stricken, jobless people. So it lives, they die.

San Francisco won't let the ROTC into its schools, prohibits the military from filming commercials inside county limits and won't stop aggressive panhandling, but it will prevent its citizens from buying pets because they might abandon them. And now, San Fran has just passed legislation to prevent McDonald's from selling Happy Meals because they're deemed by the calorie police to be unhealthful. Amazing.

And these same liberal policies have turned Los Angeles into a third world-caliber toilet inhabited by illegal aliens and fourth-generation welfare recipients, sucking up our tax dollars like a Hoover vacuum cleaner on steroids.

So why do I no longer feel sorry for Californians? Because they absolutely refuse to change it. The election just concluded gave Golden Staters one more chance to fix some of our problems and prevent a few others. And what did you do, California? You blew it, big time. You reelected Jerry Brown, a guy who earned the moniker "Moonbeam" when he was the Guv in the seventies. He appointed Rose Bird as Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court. She overturned 62 death penalty cases, every single one that came before her, including the Manson Family killers. He signed the legislation that permitted collective bargaining for public employee unions, which now threatens our State's very economic existence. He vehemently opposed Proposition 13 until it passed, at which time he decided to support it. Flip-Flopper? You decide. After he termed out he ran for and was elected Mayor of Oakland. He was so successful in this job the state was forced to take over their school system. And, he managed to also double their murder rate (one could argue he might have been even more successful if he'd have tripled it!) Then, as our illustrious Attorney General, he refused to defend Proposition 8 in the courts even though he was obligated by law and his oath to do so. And I don't care what you think about gay marriages. Prop. 8 made it illegal and good old 'Jer had a duty to defend us, the citizens of California against it, despite his personal views on the subject. The Attorney General, nor any sworn official, does not have the right to pick and choose the laws they wish to support. A pox on his house. And now, Jerry Brown will now likely live out his life without ever having had a private-sector job. Imagine. You get kicked out of the Jesuit seminary and then feed at the public trough for the rest of your liberal little, otherwise unprepossessing life. Astounding.

Then there's Barbara Boxer. You reelected her, too. After three terms in Washington, during which she earned the lowest possible rankings as to effectiveness, you sent her back for another six years. She's never had a real job either. Never met a payroll. Never signed a check on its face. Knows nothing about job creation. What she does know is that partial birth abortion is the preferred method. Oh, and she knows how to spend our money. She voted for tax increases 258 times during her ho-hum tenure. Even her home-town newspaper refused to endorse her, saying she was an ineffective and ineffectual senator and should be put out to pasture. And you decided to send her back. Either of Jerry's or Bab's opponents would have been preferable to these preening elite losers, but you decided differently.

Now let's talk the measures. You failed to pass Prop. 19, the pot legalization measure. That was surprising to me, because I assume everyone here had to be high on weed to have voted the way they did.

You voted down Prop. 23, our last and best hope to derail AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which Schwarzenwhoozits signed into law in 2006. That's the one whereby California decided to fix the world's climate problem all by itself, by rolling back greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, representing a 40% reduction. Of course, the experts say doing that would be impossible without taking every single car and truck off the road, but hey, nothing appears impossible to those nice folks in Sacto. And maybe the commute will get shorter once all the cars and trucks are gone. So, AB32 kicks in on January 1, 2011, and the next sound you'll hear will be the doors slamming shut on U-Haul trucks as businesses prepare to vacate Caleeeforneea. And they'll take at least 1,000,000 jobs with them. And your electric bill will double or triple after they go. The only ones left will be Starbucks baristas selling lattes to sign twirlers. I've said before and I say again, if you believe that carbon dioxide, that stuff plants breathe and you exhale, is a greenhouse gas, please stop exhaling.

And Prop. 25? Yep, it passed. That's the one that lets those Sacto lifers pass a budget with a vote of 50% plus one. No more 2/3rds supermajority needed. So the Dems can now pass a budget without a single Republican vote. You think taxes may go up? I do. And often. Why, I ask, do we even need a Republican party anymore? Truth is, we don't. That single-party parliamentary-style deal has worked so well in other countries, we should now formalize it for California. You know, like Cuba, and North Korea, and China and Russia. We're well on our way.

So, California, I no longer feel sorry for you. You did it to yourselves. You have turned our California into Greece, and now you've wasted your last, best chance to correct it before our Ship of State hits the rocks. We've finally reached the tipping point. That's where the statist, big government-loving weenies and the hand-out welfare crowd are able to vote themselves stuff at the expense of those few remaining folks who actually produce in our society. I still feel sorry for myself, for my family and for my friends. But I don't feel sorry for the rest of you who made this sorry likelihood possible. I hope you're happy with yourselves.

By the way, if you take a look at the red-blue map after it was updated following the election, which shows a sliver of blue along each coast and most of the remainder of our country in a bright, bright, all-American victory red, you'll have to ask; could it be salt air that's causing all this liberal craziness?

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Election Aftermath

I understand President Obama has secured nationwide network time for tomorrow afternoon to comment on today's election and its anticipated aftermath. I have it on good authority from a D.C. insider friend of mine that his speech will start with, "A funny thing happened to me on my way to Mount Rushmore."

Thursday, October 14, 2010


Just Stay Home on Election Day


It's a fact that at least eighty million Americans who are eligible to vote are not registered to vote. It's a fact that less than one-half of all Americans who were registered to vote have actually voted in the last several national elections. And it's a fact that, notwithstanding the impact of the Electoral College, less than one-quarter of all Americans who could have voted elected the last four Presidents.


In view of these facts, I thought it might prove helpful to weigh in with my humble opinion on this important and timely issue. Rather than joining in the chorus of those hoping to create new voters from among the heretofore uninterested and complacent with only a couple of weeks until the election, I take the exact opposite approach. I suggest that those who don't make it their business to study the issues and form educated opinions about the myriad challenges facing our State and our Nation should stay home on Election Day. Those unconversant about our out-of-control Federal spending, or outsourcing of jobs overseas, or the mortgage meltdown mess, or privatizing Social Security, or the perennial, crippling spending and budget problems in Sacramento, or the interminable war on terror, or continued unacceptable levels of unemployment, or finally fixing illegal immigration once and for all, etc., etc., should simply stay home on Election Day.


I suggest that those who believe government creates any kind of jobs other than government jobs should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those who want to increase taxes on the job-producing "wealthy," you know, the 5% who already pay almost half of all income taxes, should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those who might choose to become involved only because of a single, burning, hot-button issue, like saving the whales or ending global warming (or whatever they choose to call it these days), should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those who believe America owes them anything other than the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those who believe in the forced redistribution of wealth from those who produce it to those who don't should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those college students who wouldn't know a W-2 if they tripped over it and who get all teary-eyed about "hope" and "change," should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those who believe it's okay to hijack one-sixth of our economy on a strictly party-line vote late on a Christmas Eve with the intent of gutting what was the very best health care system on Earth should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those who get their information about politics solely from watching TV ads from either party should stay home on Election Day. I suggest that those who can't decide between a candidate for Governor who created 15,000 jobs and one who managed to double Oakland's murder rate should stay home on Election Day. I, for one, am alarmed at the thought my vote might once again be marginalized by someone unwilling to educate and inform themselves on the issues, as have I. All good citizens should be as well.


So, I offer my thanks in advance to those with no business voting who decide to take my advice and stay home on Election Day. To all the others, I say, "See you at the polls on November 2nd!"

Thursday, September 30, 2010

Who Owns Your Money?

Have you been following the ongoing kerfuffle in Congress over the Bush Tax Cuts? You know, the legislation passed almost ten years ago to reduce taxation rates across all income categories in a very successful attempt to spur growth in the economy and increase revenues to the Treasury? Like tax cuts almost always do? Well folks, those tax cuts sunset at midnight on New Year's Eve. If not extended in some form or fashion, what would then follow is the largest single tax increase in American history. And, given that Congress has just adjourned without action on this all-important matter bodes ill for everyone that draws a paycheck.


Congressional Democrats want to extend the tax cuts only for the so-called "middle class" and let them expire for the "rich." Rich, in this context, is defined by the Dems as those in the top 2% of wage earners. That's individuals making over $200,000 annually, and couples earning more than $250,000. Think of it as the income of your experienced fireman and the nurse he's married to. They're now rich, you see, whether they feel "rich" or not. Republicans want to extend the cuts for everyone. The President tells us we simply can't afford the $700 Billion it would cost us over 10 years to grant such largesse to those nasty rich people. Cost? There's no cost to leaving things exactly the way they are. And if cost is the issue, why aren't they focusing on the $3+ Trillion it would cost over the next decade to extend those same tax cuts for the middle-class? How, I ask, could it possibly cost us to allow those productive individuals among us to keep that extra money that they earn? That's the money with which they can invest and build companies and buy equipment and hire people. And yes, cars and houses and planes, which keep people employed building them. They are already disproportionately paying over three times the lowest tax rates. In fact, the top 2% already pay more than 25% of all income taxes. It seems to me that's punishment enough for being successful.


Where did all this class warfare come from? Why are the Dems on Capitol Hill so dedicated to penalizing the only folks who can reasonably get us out of this economic morass? I can come up with only one reason. They believe that all the money is really theirs, to do with as they see fit. And they believe they can spend it far better than can we. And redistribute it better, too, selectively buying votes in the process. It's been noted you can't make poor people rich by making rich people poor. Winston Churchill once remarked that trying to tax ourselves into prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift ourselves up by the handle. I close with one key question: When was the last time a poor person hired anybody?


Wednesday, September 8, 2010

A Lie Repeated Often Enough is Still a Lie

I've grown weary of the constant drumbeat from the Administration and the Mainstream Media that this economic hole we're in was created by George W. Bush. Our new President continually states that he "inherited" the big Federal budget deficits and has to "clean up the mess" left by the Republicans. Although I risk sounding professorial here, please allow me to remind everyone that the President of the United States doesn't spend a single dime. He doesn't vote for expenditures, he doesn't allocate who gets what and he doesn't write the checks. As per our Constitution, which is all-to-often disregarded these days, all spending measures must originate in the House of Representatives and be voted into law by the Senate. Then and only then does the President sign them into law or choose to exercise his veto pen.

It bears repeating that the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress on January 20, 2007. That's nearly four years ago. Nancy ("You've got to pass the (healthcare) bill so we can find out what's in it.") Pelosi, Speaker of the House, and Harry ("This war is lost!") Reid, Majority Leader of the Senate, have worked hand-in-hand with Barack Hussein ("America is the greatest country on Earth. Join with me as we begin to fundamentally transform it.") Obama, POTUS, to grow our Federal debt from $9.2 Trillion amassed over a 230 year period ending with President Bush, to $13.45 Trillion today. More than $4 Trillion dollars of increased debt in just a bit over one and one-half years. And remember that then-Senator Obama voted for every single appropriations bill that he now oversees, and that now threatens our kids' future. Democrats are responsible for every dollar appropriated, every dollar spent and every dollar of increased indebtedness. Our Federal debt now equals more than 90% of our Gross National Product. By the time Obama leaves office, our debt will completely eclipse our GNP. That's Greek territory, folks. So if Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal are threatening the very existence of the European Union, can our economy be far behind? Oh, by the way. Yes, I'm a graduate economist, so I actually do know a little bit about this subject.

Remember that the whole housing crisis was caused by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, Democrat leaders of their respective banking committees in the House and the Senate. They loosened requirements for home loans to the point where only a heartbeat was necessary to qualify. Then they forced Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up the bogus mortgages. Then they cut up the tranches of mortgages into little pieces and sold them off as solid securities around the world. Tens of thousands of folks who should have never purchased homes soon started defaulting on their mortgages, driving home prices into the cellar. That's why we as a country and the whole wide world are in this colossal mess. This was a Democrat plan, a Democrat policy and a Democrat debacle.

So folks, as we head into the "silly season," don't be hoodwinked by those who attempt to evade responsibility for our sorry situation. Those who elect to vote on November 2nd for politicians who believe in more and bigger government, ever increasing taxes, borrowing and spending on a monumental scale, redistribution of somebody else's wealth, class warfare, government takeovers and bailouts and ever more onerous regulations which are squeezing the private sector into near oblivion, I invite them to do so. Pull that lever remembering you're entitled to your own opinions. But you're not entitled to your own facts...

Friday, August 27, 2010

Let's Poll the Judges

Have you heard that a U.S. Chief District Judge just declared Prop. 8 unconstitutional? Yep, that he did. Openly gay Judge Vaughn Walker, rather than recusing himself for not being - ahem - objective in the matter, stated on page 135 of his ruling, "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis in which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians." He went on to state that the only rational basis for 7,000,000 Californians to have voted in the affirmative for Prop. 8 was their desire to keep gays as second-class citizens. Interesting observation, don't you think?

Is it just me or is this judicial activism thing way out of control? It seems like only yesterday that a judge overturned Proposition 187. 1994 it was, and one could argue that this judge's action has cost Californians billions and billions of dollars each and every year since. Then there was a Supreme Court Justice named David Souter who wrote the majority opinion in overturning a lower court decision in the case of Kelo vs. City of New Haven to rule that it's quite alright to take private property from individuals and give it to another PRIVATE concern, if that action is expected to generate increased tax revenues. Holy eminent domain, Batman. His opinion tortured the Constitution .almost beyond recognition. Now Sonja Sotomayor, a newly-appointed Supreme Court Justice, said during her confirmation hearings that the individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, otherwise known as the Second Amendment, is "settled law." In her first test of that under-oath declaration, she voted against McDonald vs. City of Chicago. No thanks to her, that basic American right was reaffirmed in this landmark case on a 5-4 decision. That too-close vote demonstrates vividly that our Republic is hanging, literally, by a thread. There are many, many more examples that could be cited, but hey, you get the idea...

It seems to me we're wasting tons of money, scads of manpower and loads of time voting on measure which may well be overturned down the line by somebody in a black robe. Maybe it would be a better idea to simply put together a list of all the thorny issues we as a people face. These could include abortion, religious freedom, offshore drilling, onshore drilling, drilling in general, corporal punishment, the death penalty, drug use and abuse, smoking in public, or smoking anywhere for that matter, universal health care, global warming, or whatever they're calling it these days, amnesty for illegals (oh, I'm sorry, Undocumented Democrats), forced unionization and the redistribution of wealth from the productive to the less than, to name but a very few. Then we could simply send this list off to all the state and federal judges for their exalted opinions. Once we've received their consensus from on-high on what's okay and what's not for We the People, we could simply implement those edicts from our ivory-tower overseers and eliminate this whole messy voting thing once and for all. Then we could change our national motto from "E Pluribus Umum" to "Welcome to Venezuela. Check Your Guns at the Door."

Wednesday, August 4, 2010

The Coming Unpleasantness

What would happen if there was a country which...

...paid no attention whatsoever to the will of its people, choosing rather to do whatever the ruling class wished;

...would not secure or guard its borders, even to the extent of suing one of its own states for attempting to do so;

...raided the pocketbooks of the productive class unmercilessly, and then, due to issues of "fairness," redistributed that wealth to those who choose not to work for it;

...turned its back on the residents of one of its coastal regions in the time of crisis, preferring rather to keep its union members as solid friends and supporters;

...forced its citizens to, for the first time in history, buy something - anything - in clear violation of the Constitution upon which the country was based, that they did not want, did not need, could not afford and loudly protested against;

...continually lied to its citizens, saying whatever was expedient at the time simply to win votes from various minority constituents and greedily consolidate power;

...borrowed more than twice as much in the its leadership's first full year as the entirety of the federal debt amassed during the preceding 221 years and 43 presidents combined;

...grew government so massively in one and one-half years that, from a piddling 7% of the economy in the control of the government when the current administration took power, more than half is now owned or controlled by the union-backed executive;

...stiffed the corporate bond holders of a car company of their first-in-line position when a car company pulled the plug and then redistributed their constitutionally-guaranteed ownership to a union;

...worked tirelessly to redefine the 27 little words that guaranteed its citizens the right to keep and bear arms in an all-out effort to disarm and make serfs of the public;

...hired 37 "czars" who are unknown to its citizens and unvetted by its legislature, performed tasks known to no one but the executive but were paid entirely by the citizenry.

I submit that such a country would rather quickly find itself in the midst of a civil war. Except that this time, it wouldn't be between the north and the south. It would be between the states and the centralized government. Given that each and every day in this country could very well bring a new assault on freedoms, that day appears to be coming, and rapidly. In about 90 days the citizens of this country may vote to affirm this brand of leadership, or chooose to overturn it. We shall soon learn which...