Are You Ready For Six Californias?

Yes, not one, or two Californias but if venture capitalist Tim Draper has his way and the voters approve, we could see the once Golden State split into six states.
Yes, there have been multiple proposals to split California into two states with the most recent being in 2011 and it was proposed by Jeff Stone.
And there is the ongoing attempt to get some of the most northern counties to split off from California and with some Southern Oregon counties getting together to form the State of Jefferson.
But this plan by Mr. Draper could make the general election ballot in 2016. And with about a year and a half to get about 806,000 signatures, it should make that ballot.
I don't find myself drawn to this plan because it is too many divisions and has a lot less chance of seeing the light of day as opposed to simply dividing the state by north and south or east and west.
And while this is only a potential ballot initiative, judging by the people on this Facebook link with KNBC 4 News, the beyond low information voter is rearing their collective heads in a really bad way.
Overwhelmingly, the majority of commenters are against the general idea of splitting the state in any way. And that is fine in and of itself. Yet few if any give a substantive reason as to why it would be a bad idea.
A lot of people think that because Mr. Draper is a venture capitalist, that automatically disqualifies him from even promoting such an idea.
Still many think that Mr. Draper is an eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Republican and just trying to give the GOP some kind of electoral advantage.
Too bad that Mr. Draper is not a Republican but a Libertarian.
And really, if California were to be split in an east/west way, it would guarantee that it would be a GOP electoral gain. Even a north/south split would be better for the GOP than six separate states.
Look at the map below.

 



I look at three states that will be Democrat and or Democrat-leaning. That would be North California, Silicon Valley and West California.

And three states that would be Republican and or Republican-leaning. Those states would be Jefferson, Central and South California.

In terms of presidential elections, it would probably be a wash regarding the electoral college. The same in terms of representation in the senate. And possibly each state House of Representatives would be more competitive.

Nothing in this life is a guarantee, but in this being some eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Republican plot, eh, not so much.

There would be some very wide economic disparities in each state.

The three coastal states of North California, West California and Silicon Valley would be pretty invested in technology.

Central and South California would be heavily invested in agriculture.

Jefferson would probably be the most economically depressed of the six states for a variety of reasons.

So if that is the case, and I am only generalizing based on the current economy in each of the proposed states, again what is the possible benefit?

Well for one thing each state would be able to exert greater control over issues that they find to be important for each state's citizens. Each state could determine tax policy and what kind of taxes they want.
Each state would be able to determine their own policies towards education, law and order, prisons, whether they want to continue the policy of the ballot initiative or not.
In other words, each state determines it's fate on it's own terms. That is that does not violate the United States constitution.
One of the problems is that local control, cities and counties, seems to erode year after year. More and more matters that cities and counties should handle are being taken by the state.
An example are plastic bag bans.
As I noted in an earlier post, my hometown, Pasadena, passed a city ordinance that supermarkets could not continue to provide plastic shopping bags for customers. That customers could purchase a paper bag for 10c if they do not want to bring plastic, reusable bags. Besides it being crony capitalism at its worst, I think that it will not help in the matter of litter and the like. Now there is a push to take this ban state-wide. Thus no matter where you go to shop, no matter what city, better have those reusable plastic bags if the legislature has its way.
That is not the state's business. Let the local governments decide such issues.
That is sort of the point of why Mr. Draper believes its time to break up the state.
I think that this is worth discussion. I think that if the required signatures are made, this should go to the voters. We need to have a serious talk with each other. I fear that the reactions of the commenters on the KNBC 4 Facebook page is a bad sign. It is clear if you go to the link that many are the lowest of the low information voters.
I'm not sure that this has any more of a chance than the many other proposals to break up the once Golden State, but let's have a serious, adult, conversation about it. About the possibility of six Californias.



A Weekend Palate Cleanser: The Assault On Home Ownership Begins

Just when one thinks that the left might want to keep certain policies to themselves, we have to thank Ryan Cooper writing in The Week for beginning the assault on home ownership.
Yes, Mr. Cooper thinks that the American Dream of striving for home ownership is pretty bad. The really bad thing about home ownership is that it separates the haves from the have nots. No really, it does.
If you want Karl Marx 101, it is right here in this one sentence:

Homeownership has long been the way American society has divided itself into a responsible, stable bourgeoisie (owners) and an undisciplined rabble (renters). The divide used to be along stark, overtly racial lines, enforced by white supremacist terrorism, but nowadays the distinction is a bit more subtle.

Yes, you who are fortunate to be home owners and myself are bourgeoisie. And dammit, we maintain our bourgeois lifestyle by overt racism and even terrorism. I'm sorry, that was before. No, no, no. It's no longer so overt.
You must read all at the link to get the flavor of Mr. Cooper and ho at a level he does not really understand why home ownership is why America is the way she is.
First, some personal background.
As I am pushing 50 years old, Mrs. RVFTLC and I are pretty new homeowners. This May 15 will be our three-year anniversary as home owners. Before that we were renters. Yes, in many ways, renting is easy. All we have to do us write a check to our landlord once a month and that is it. Maybe included in the rent are utilities. Maybe not. And when one rents, if something goes wrong, like plumbing, or any other thing that is wrong, call the landlord. When the landlord feels like it, they will call someone to go over and take a look at the problem. And that person will notify the landlord. They determine if a total repair is going to be made or not. And renting one can choose an apartment, a condominium, a town home or even a home. Why if it is a home, don't worry about how the front yard looks. The landlord will send a gardener maybe every week or more likely twice a month. But you can't do anything YOU want to the front yard. Nor the back yard. Nor inside the domicile. You can't paint any wall willy nilly. And maybe you have to use approved nails by the landlord to hang your wall coverings, pictures, photos and the like. You can't choose carpet or hardwood floors. It's up to the landlord.
See, renting is great if you don't mind having most of your freedoms at the cost of the whim of a landlord. Or if you don't mind getting things done on a landlord's schedule and not your own.
But what is the wonder of home ownership?
Well, even though you are paying a mortgage for up to 30 years, it is yours. And the most obvious is that the mortgage payment never changes. The only way it does if one chooses to refinance the loan at a lower interest rate. Which lowers one's payment. Get it. It never goes up and can go down.
Now when Mrs. RVFTLC and I bought our current abode nearly three years ago, we decided that we did not want the work of owning a single-family dwelling. So we saw our dream, a town home. It is a compromise because of the way that it is layed out. It is in eight sections of about six to eight units each. And they have a detached garage, a little back yard, the unit and a little front yard. Perfect for our needs. As I alluded to, we belong to an HOA or Home Owner's Association. So it is our monthly mortgage and HOA payment. In three years no payment hike. Our HOA has only gone up $20 or an average of about $6.75c a year. The year before we moved, our rent went up $50. And was more than our two payments here combined.
And one thing that our current federal tax system does is give tax incentive to home ownership. Whether or not that is a good thing or not is for another time and another post.
By allotting a mortgage deduction for home ownership and improvements, I can assure you we have already recouped our investment by breaking even, federal tax wise. Even Mr. Cooper acknowledges that but in a snarky, disingenuous way. From Mr. Cooper:

The most prevalent is the mortgage interest deduction, which racked up a bill of $100 billion in 2009.

Don't you like how Mr. Cooper implies a cost? There is not a cost but $100,000,000,000 that does not go into the politician's pockets in Washington. It ends up staying in the local economies and taxes end up being collected locally rather than in Washington. So there is not a cost but not a redistribution of wealth either.
Speaking of taxes, being a home owner means that one has to pay property taxes.
And in California, for a roughly $300,000 home (yeah, there are some, but this is just a figure to use) the annual property tax is roughly $3,700. And in Los Angeles county there are special districts that the property tax goes to such as flood control, county parks, our local library. There are 11 extra assessments which adds roughly about $500 more to our property tax bill. So yes, being a home owner has the perk of paying for many services that renters do not directly pay for.
Something to think about, eh Mr. Cooper?
Without homeowners, who would pay for schools? Flood control districts? Storm drain channels? Community colleges? Shall I go on?
Here is something to think about.
In the United States, as of 2009, the home ownership rate was 67%. a majority of Americans. And yes, it is true as Mr. Cooper points out, many homeowners are underwater because of the housing bubble bursting in 2007. But unlike the gloom and doom of the millions that he mentions (and I have to doubt that broad number), one of the aspects of the investment into a home is for the long run. In other words, one can buy a home at $300,000 and stay in it 20 years. And maybe in that time, the value will go down. but at 20 years, if you sell it you will more than likely sell it at a profit. Yes if one buys a home just as an investment, it does take a lot of work into researching all case scenarios.
And while Mr. Cooper bashes some of the subsidies and or federal tax breaks as for the rich, again the fact is that the Home Mortgage Deduction is why at this point many, many American families have not been victims of the housing bubble.
What Mr. Cooper fails to point out is why the last bubble occurred.
It is due to the fact that pressure was put on lenders by the federal government to provide loans to people that were not prepared for home ownership. Down payments were a bare minimum. The lenders made all kind of exceptions and were encouraged to do so. Regrettably, this was to try to get more minority families into home ownership. No, not regretting that it was aimed at minorities. The regret is that is why many of the lenders were called predatory. It would have been beneficial to have the potential home buyers have more of a down payment. It would have been a good thing for the lender to have poor credit risks clean up their credit problems before they proceeded with their loans. In many cases, they did not.
Before we continue, home ownership is NOT for everybody for a lot of reasons. One is mobility and especially among younger, generally college graduates. For many of those will have to for job prospects. Another is that for some people, home ownership is not their American dream. Many of those are single people. And they are probably more interested in long-term travelling. They do not want to be tied down with having to deal with what home ownership brings. And most of all, there are those that can not afford it and all of the above is OK.
What Mr. Cooper does not explain in his piece is who should be homeowners, What kind of society will it be if most of the homes were owned by a few and the majority were forced to be renters? Is he comfortable with maybe five people owning 95% of homes in any given substantial city?
He does not say.
What Mr. Cooper does suggest is that there really should be no difference between a home owner and the renter:

Most of all, though, there is simply no reason for home ownership to occupy the cultural perch that it does. Renting is just as legitimate a form of paying for shelter as buying.

No, a home that is bought is not just for shelter. If you put it to that level, what you end up with is something along these lines.

This is what housing looked like in the old Soviet Union. Many cities and towns have rows, rows and endless rows of this kind of simple housing. Because since it was owned by the state and it really is for shelter after all, it does not have to look like anything, oh I don't know, unique. Individual.
And the dirty secret that Mr. Cooper will not tell you is that is what his idea on home ownership lead to. The abolition of private property and that includes and is eventually home ownership.
If Mr. Cooper went that far in this piece, he would be called a socialist nut-job. What he is doing is setting up the idea that home ownership is something of a bygone era. That renting is OK. Who cares? It's just shelter after all. What is the big deal?
The big deal is that private property and home ownership are the bulwarks of the American experience.
And people like Ryan Cooper see that as an affront. And he has begun the conversation that is the assault on home ownership.

Are My Fellow Californians Really This Stupid?

Really, are you, my fellow California citizens, whatever that means nowadays, this stupid to back warning labels and higher taxes on sodas?
It appears according to this Field Poll, you really are this moronic.
I can tell you something without the benefit of a warning label and or higher taxes.
Soda is bad for you. No really, any kind of soda is bad for you. It has a lot of sugar and or sugar substitutes and can make you fat and have teeth problems up to and as bad as losing said teeth.
Why I gave that advice to you for free.
But I guess my fellow Californians will believe anything. Anything as long as it's for the kiddies.
I never thought that I would write such a thing but screw the kiddies.
I mean it. If you are a parent and can not show simple restraint in what your children put into their bodies, your parenting can come into questioning. If you are an adult as most of those reading this are, and you don't know this, then you are stupid.
The most appalling aspect of this poll is the breakdown as far as support.
Overall, 74% of registered voters polled support warning labels on soda products. Not surprisingly, 80% of Democrats support it. And 75% of independents also show support of the warning labels. But 64% of Republicans support warning labels on soda products.
Sixty-four percent of Republicans?!
What happened to adults making their own decisions based on the facts presented to them? I guess There is a bunch of Republicans that don't care anymore.
The group known as the California Endowment, which supports pretty much any left-wing cause including the warning labels, paid for this poll and hired the Field Poll because it has a reputation of being tacitly non-partisan.
Here is what a proposed warning label would say:

Studies show that daily consumption of sodas and other sugary drinks contribute to diabetes, obesity, and tooth decay.

No, really?! I am so shocked that I need the government to tell the soda makers that they have to inform the so sheltered public that there are potential risks of consuming their products.
Of course I am not shocked! I have heard much of this since I was a wee tyke back in the late 1960s and 70s when I was growing up. And it is pretty much a known fact that these are the potential side effects of excessive, and that is the key, excessive soda consumption.
Have we fallen so bad on using our common sense that we need government interference? Are we that gullible to think that an essential 24c tax on 12 ounces of soda will really go to the kiddies? Well, that is what we were sold on the state lottery. If that was the case, every school in the state would be fully funded, teachers would be paid more awesome salaries than they already are and we would be producing the best educated kids in the United States.
Now when questioned about the actual soda tax, the number actually goes down to 67% in the poll. And it is noted that similar legislation failed in the city of Richmond, California and in polling in San Francisco, it is short of the 67% that it would need to pass the voters if put on the local ballot later this year.
Clearly, while a majority seem to support the tax idea in theory, when it comes down to voting on it, there is a failure to get two-thirds a vote that is needed to raise such taxes.
But understand why it has such a high number is that the scam idea is that as long as the money is spent on supposed programs to to help childhood programs regarding this issue.
I have a novel idea.
Why is this not part of the school curriculum? Right from first grade children should be taught about such dangers as excessive soda consumption and general hygiene such as dental care and the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth. If that is done, we don't need such silliness as another tax that will, more than likely, be squandered and not do what it is supposed to.
This is for my fellow Californians from a place of seriousness.
Parents, it is up to you to teach your children about what is good and not good for them to drink and eat. You already know that soda is probably not good for them to consume. You need to exert control. You do not need the government to do it for you.
Adults, I repeat, soda is not good for you. you do no need the government to force soda makers to make you aware of that fact. Also, do not think that a separate program that is suppose to help "educate" the kiddies will do what it claims will work. Do not be fooled into supporting higher taxes because, well its for the kiddies.
In other words my fellow Californians, don't be stupid and fall for this new act of government intrusion into our private lives and decisions. Say no to warning labels and taxes against sodas!

Will O-Care Turn Liberals Into Conservatives?

Well, to the Kool-aid drinking true believers, not in the least.
But to some people that may not be the above yet have a liberal, do-gooder heart, I think that this will be at the same level as the tax-revolt of the 1970s.
Now I read this article yesterday and the reason it has taken so long to extrapolate on it is because I could not stop laughing.
Now to set it up, the San Jose Mercury-News talked with two people that are big supporters of the Dear Leader, President Obama, and are proud that they voted for the Dear Leader, President Obama, not once but twice. Also, they have been huge supporters of the Patient Portability and Affordable Healthcare Act.
Both are high-income earners that earned four times the poverty-level rate. And both buy their own health insurance.
And a funny thing happened when they got their latest bill from their respective insurance companies.
And they were shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Because, surprise! Their rates went up. And waaaay up.
One of those interviewed, Cindy Vinson, is single and self insured and her rate will go up $1,800 a year.
The second interviewed, Tom Waschura, pays insurance for a family of four. And his rate will go up a cool $10,000 a year! Yes, you read that right, $10,000 a year.
Now, do you remember how the Dear Leader, President Obama, on many, many occasions said this, especially as he was running for president:

I think that the video speaks for itself. But in case someone wants to say, but he said about people who have insurance through their employers. No, watch the whole video because really, it all depended on who he was speaking to. The fact is that he sold the public that voted for him that their insurance costs would go down.
Well, maybe Miss Vinson's bill was a typo. Maybe it really should have been a savings of $1,800 a for the year. And Mr. Waschura must be hoping and praying that he is getting a huge savings of $10,000 for his annual premium.
No to both of you. And really, you really should have known you saps.
According to Dana Howard of Covered California, the statewide health exchange why some people's rates are going up and many if not most will not change or even go down. Here is what he said:

"Some people will see an increase who are already on the individual market purchasing insurance, but most people will not."

Dana, that is NOT what the Dear Leader, President Obama said in selling this scam plan.
Now Covered California is suggesting that 570,000 out of 1,900,000 are eligible for subsidies that could see their rates decrease. OK, that still leaves the overwhelming majority, 1,330,000 to be exact, possibly SOL and see their rates go up.
And you know, people can not be denied health coverage due to a preexisting condition (a good thing and one that at best needs to be kept even after repealing O-Care) and in the case of Marilynn Gray-Raine she also gets a government subsidy that lowered her monthly rate.
Guess who is really paying for that?
Why people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura, of course!
They are apparently healthy people and in the case of Mr. Waschura have a healthy family.
Well, being healthy and buying your own health insurance coverage, taking personal responsibility, gets them the shaft.
It is wealth redistribution, pure plain and simple.
And when people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura come to realize that they, not some magic fairy from the sky, are paying for the federal government subisdy and those with preexisting conditions, well let me have Mr. Waschura explain:

"I was laughing at Boehner (Speaker of the House, John Boehner R-Oh.)-until the mail came today. I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."

BINGO!
But if you think that Mr. Waschura is rather now pissed about it, Miss Vinson is even more biting:

"Of course I want people to have health care. I just didn't realize that I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."

And once again, BINGO! And an OUCH!
I'm sorry for these two people, but again, how did they think that this was going to be paid for? Did they not realize that for the federal government to provide a subsidy for people the money would have to come from somewhere? Did they really think that they would not, because of their own success and financial status would not be touched? While both realized that their premiums would go up, they did not realize quite how much.
This goes to what I believe is the heart of the matter.
I too want to see people have access to decent health care. The problem is that if the government gets involved, it will come at many costs. One, people who pay for their own coverage out of pocket have to pay more because of the complexity of this plan. And do you remember this constant line from the Dear Leader, President Obama:

"First of all, if you've got health insurance, you like your doctor, you like your plan -- you can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan. Nobody is talking about taking that away from you."

Neither is true for many people.
Ask those that are seeing their hours cut and fall under the 30 hour threshold at major companies. It automatically puts them in the exchange market. And if they have to choose a plan that their doctor is not part of and a plan different from what they had before, well you know the rest of the story.
The reality is that, as I have been arguing, we need to have O-Care take full effect. We should be fighting for not one exemption, period. We need to show the people that a huge undertaking such as this is unworkable and unfeasible.
In other words, to be blunt, we need to show people like Miss Vinson and Mr. Waschura that while their heart is in the right place, they need to think beyond that. They need to think with their brains. And yes, for their own interests as well.
They will more than likely be part of a next generation of conservatives. And we will be able to thank O-Care for that.

California Trying To Affect Social Change Through Tax Code

It stuns me that I have to find this story about legislation winding through the California state legislature that would take away state tax-exempt status from various groups for supposedly perpetuating some form of discrimination in . . . The Washington Times.
And this should be getting much more publicity than it is.
But this is California and the "media" is all but controlled by the Democrat party. No seriously. Outside of maybe talk radio and a couple of newspapers, The Orange County Register and the U-T San Diego, the "media" in this state is driven by the left and their agenda.
Understand that if this legislation passes and Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown signs it, this is how the Democrat party will try to force private organizations to change their ways to please their fringe base. A fringe base they need to obtain, gain and keep power.
The legislation is known as SB 323 and spearheaded by state senator Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) and it will take away the state tax-exemption from what is referred to as a public charity youth organization. And in the text of the legislation it has these definitions:

"That an organization that is a public charity youth organization that discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation is not exempt from the taxes imposed by that law."

And what is it that qualifies as a public youth charity organization?
Well here is what Sen. Lara thinks are public youth charity organizations:

Little League, Bobby Sox, Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire, Inc., Young Men’s Christian Association, Young Women’s Christian Association, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, 4-H Clubs, Distributive Education Clubs of America, Future Business Leaders of America, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, Collegiate Young Farmers, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Special Olympics, Inc., American Youth Soccer Organization, California Youth Soccer Association, North, California Youth Soccer Association, South, and Pop Warner football.
Inserting the triple facepalm here, although it is not enough:

Where, where to begin?
Well, the obvious is what is Sen. Lara's skin in the game?
Of course Sen. Lara is openly gay. And in Sen. Lara's "mind", these groups are real or imagined anti-homosexual. Oh yes, he does throw in sop language like race, creed or religion to make it a bit more palatable. But really, this is to make organizations drop what they believe or are perceived to believe.
Let's look at the list and show some examples of organizations that clearly have a religious angle.
That would be the Young Men's Christian Association and the Young Women's Christian Association. Both are more familiar as the YMCA or the WYCA. I highlight Christian for the obvious reasons. Both groups are, let me spell for those like Sen. Lara, C H R I S T I A N organizations. Both were founded specifically to promote Christianity. In fact, here is the mission statement for the YMCA at the link. Ahh, I think that the statement has nothing to say one way or the other about homosexuals. And I know that when one uses YMCA or YWCA facilities, no one is asked if they are Christians and or homosexuals. And the WYCA sounds like the perfect group for people like Sen. Lara as it advocates the left-wing agenda. Read this link if you think that I am being over reactive. In fact, the statement does note that many are NOT Christian that work in and for the WYCA. But once again, there is nothing about homosexuals one way or the other. And I'll bet that there is really no discrimination at all at WYCA facilities.
But no matter to people like Sen. Lara. They are clearly sexist organizations and they advocate that yucky Christian religion. So yeah, lets tax 'em into submission.
OK Sen. Lara, why are you going after the Future Farmers of America?
There is nothing, not one thing anywhere that explicitly or on the down-low that discriminates against anyone, male or female, heterosexual or homosexual, race, religion, not one thing. If you do not believe me, here is mission statement page, the bylaws and the organization constitution.
I suppose the pesky standard that one should be enrolled in agriculture related classes and actually work and spend their own money is pretty discriminatory according to Sen. Lara and his clique.
One of my favs of this is going after the Special Olympics. Yes, I know that a group that exists because of recognizing the value of those with special needs, and that is an umbrella term primarily for mental disorders, is just eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll! I guess that there is some people that feel the Special Olympics is a discriminating organization as evidenced here. But I support this worthy goal because it does provide an outlet for those with mental disabilities to participate in sports. What bothers Sen. Lara and his clique about this? That there are no homosexual special needs participants?!
And damn me that this legislation goes right after youth sports! Here is the list:

Little league baseball
Bobby Sox softball
American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO)
California Youth Soccer Organization (CYSO)
California Youth Soccer Organization North and South
Pop Warner football

I refer to the triple facepalm photo above once again.
When I suggested here that the left hates competitive sports here, I know what I am speaking of. Even though most if not all do not have score and statistics until children are older, they are competitive. And yes, they do play by gender. Again, there is nothing to stop a group from forming co-ed, no stats leagues. Also note that the legislation goes after baseball, a tradition-laden sport, football, a very competitive and yes aggressive sport and soccer, a very popular sport especially among immigrant communities but has a fan base that again, can kind of be yucky to people like Sen. Lara and his clique.
And of course the legislation goes after the eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll Boy Scouts. And even the Girl Scouts are not safe. Neither are gender-specific Boy's Clubs or Girl's Clubs. The Boy's and Girl's Clubs seem to be safe.
If you really look at the list all the groups listed are pretty traditional laden. The natural appeal is to people who value a certain tradition. And it is not limited to conservative people. Many people that are liberal are part of all of these groups. Most promote great ideas and values and have adapted to changing times without going against their values.
But here is what people like Sen. Lara and his clique don't get.
If this abominable legislation should be passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Moonbeam Brown, what is to say a conservative part of the United States will not try this to assault decidedly liberal or left leaning groups? Who is to say that Texas legislators may not move to take away the state tax-exempt status of Planned Parenthood? The National Organization of Women? The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? May I go on with liberal-left groups that the conservatives do not like?
The real problem is how the tax-code grants special status in the first place to many groups and or organizations.
The point of taxation is to have the largest possible base and to fund the government to provide basic services. Which of course means that takes out any social engineering. And that is what Sen. Lara and his clique are trying to do.
But my real question is this.
What the eff is wrong with you Ricardo Lara? What, do you hate these particular groups? Could not hang in sports? Didn't get into the FFA? Couldn't get in the Boy Scouts? What, all because you are gay? Did they all tell you so? Really, do you realize that you will tax these worthwhile groups out of existance unless they conform to your personal specifications? Do you really want to take away social opportunities for children especially? Educational opportunities?
Once again, people like Sen. Lara and the whole idea of a full-time, top paid legislature is what is making California an unlivable place. Seriously. This state that I love and call home is becomingly utterly unlivable.
Social change is not always a bad thing. What is bad is using the taxing power of the state to affect social change among organizations that choose what kind of people they want in them. It is a form of the jack-boot of big government that is going to force a showdown that is totally unnecessary.

Yup, I'm Down With Going Over The Fiscal Cliff

As the pundits and partisans hand-wring about what will happen if the United States falls off of the so-called fiscal cliff, I am coming around to this position.
I am down with going over the fiscal cliff.
Now I am not at this decision lightly.
Without a doubt, the Republicans will be blamed if this does indeed occur. And even if a known to be horrible compromise is somehow hatched-up, Republicans who accede to Democrat demands will not be given a free ride.
Ask then-President George H. W. Bush when he collapsed under Democrat pressure and broke the no-new taxes pledge. Did he get credit for "being an adult" or any of the other Washington Beltway euphemisms? Noooo! He got hammered for raising taxes by none other than William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. in the 1992 presidential campaign. Yeah, a lot of good it did Mr. Bush who lost reelection that year.
That is what will happen to any Republican that continues to entertain giving any quarter to the Democrat demands, which will lead to tax hikes.
So, what will happen if no deal is reached and then we go over the fiscal cliff?
The immediate that happens as of January 1, 2013 will be what is called sequestration. It essentially will be a combination of budget cuts and tax hikes.
Now, I link Marc Thiessen (too bad he does not spell Mark correctly!) because it is a useful guide to exactly what happens.
And here are the tax highlights Mr. Thiessen alludes to:

●The employee share of the Social Security payroll tax would rise from 4.2 percent to 6.2 percent.

●An estimated 33 million taxpayers — many in high-tax blue states — would be required to pay the alternative minimum tax, up from 4 million who owed it in 2011.

●The child tax credit would be cut in half, from $1,000 today to $500, and would no longer be refundable for most.

●Tax preferences for alternative fuels, community development and other Democratic priorities would go away.

●And the expansions of the earned income tax credit and the dependent care credit would disappear as well.

Now what Mr. Thiessen does not discuss and is very real about the actual budget cuts is what will happen to the defense budget. It will take the largest hit if indeed budget cuts have to be implemented once the United States falls off the cliff.
But what is in it for the long run for those of us that want to pursue real tax reform and entitlement reform?
Well, I can not say it better than Mr. Thiessen does right here:

Americans had a choice this November, and they voted for bigger government. Rather shielding voters from the consequences of their decisions, let them pay for it.

And therein lie why the Republicans need to let the United States fall off that fiscal cliff.
Because the reality is that the people that did vote for the Dear Leader, President Obama, and Democrats need to come to an understanding.
That big government actually costs real money. And that real money is the taxes that the government will collect from more Americans to pay for such things as the so-called "stimulus" that currently Red China is paying for. And of course there is Obamacare.
See, the Democrats really want people to believe that only wealthy people, whatever they define as wealthy, should have to shoulder the burden of taxes and not all taxpayer need to be part of paying taxes in the first place.
The problem is, there are just not that many wealthy people unless you lower the wealth bar pretty low. The way that Democrats have figured, about $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for a married couple and or household.
And at some point, the Democrats will realize, damn, why that is not enough and wealthy, well, lets see, maybe lets make that $150,000 or individuals and $200,000 for married couples and families. It thus becomes a game of drip, drip, drip until the bar is so lowered that well what Mr. Thiessen describes as the taxes going up happens in one fell swoop.
KA-BOOM!
The problem is that if the Republicans get caught up in some moronic "Grand Bargain" to avoid the fiscal cliff, they will not have any position of strength to fight for serious tax reform let alone entitlement reform.
In other words, real pain must occur before real reform can be negotiated and achieved.
And it is why Republicans need to not try for some deal to avoid the fiscal cliff. We must drive the car right off of it and lay the blame where it belongs-with the Democrats-and then negotiate from a position of strength.

So, Why ARE People Leaving The Once Golden State?

It is very depressing to know that the place I call home, California, is descending into Greece of the United States Left Coast.
And, because of the overwhelming power of the California Democrats, there seems to be no relief in sight.
But at least this study by the Manhattan Institute gives some insight as to a real serious part of the problem.
In a nutshell, the very people that we need are leaving because of high taxes, over regulation and a deteriorating overall quality of life.
California's population that is leaving is moving to surrounding states, by and large. According to the report, Texas, Nevada and Arizona are the leading places where those that leave move to. Then there is Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Utah. And two Southern states, Georgia and South Carolina, are a pretty big draw for fleeing Californians.
There is a lot a data to digest.
One aspect of this is that the migration to other states began in 1990. That is partially due to the restructuring of the military and closing down bases and research facilities. A lot of those people decided to pull up stakes.
What is replacing those that leave?
Sorry but it is illegal aliens.
Now most are coming to attempt a better life than they have it where ever they are from. But they are not the job producers.
So, for individuals, what are the reasons to move from this state?
Here is directly from the report:

I: Jobs
A closer look at movement to and from the top three destination states for Californians— Texas, Nevada, and Arizona—shows the impact of the 2008–09 recession on migration in general. People simply did not move as much because there were fewer jobs to attract them. But even with the recession impelling people to stay put, Texas had a relatively strong pull on Californians. Texas’s net inflow from California between 2009 and 2010 was 14,963. That’s small compared with the population of either state but is impressive in the context of a major economic downturn. According to the IRS data, the next biggest beneficiary in that period for net migration from California was Oregon, at 5,708 net gain, followed by the state of Washington, at 4,741. Arizona and Nevada, the two most popular destination states at the start of the decade, netted only 3,653 between them from California in the decade’s last year. This is consistent with our hypothesis that these states are destinations for retiring Californians, as the economic crisis put retirement plans on hold for many who suffered losses in real estate or the stock market.

There is more, but again this is a highlight. It behooves you to read the whole study.

2. Taxes
Most of the destination states favored by Californians have lower taxes. Even Oregon, with income-tax rate like those of California, has a more business-friendly tax code. On the other side of the migration ledger, the states that are still net senders of people to California range from near the middle of the tax scale to the very top. As a general rule, Californians have tended to flee high taxes for low ones.

As you read on, this is somewhat harder to quantify as this being a separate reason. But it must be for some people.

3. Other Costs
Employers may be especially sensitive to California’s tax bite because the state’s other business expenses are so high. One 2005 study, by the Los Angeles–based Milken Institute, ranked California fourth-highest in the nation on a broad cost-of doing-business index. (The Milken Institute’s last survey of this type, in 2007, used slightly different methodology but put California almost as high, at sixth.) Among other factors, California’s 2005 electricity-cost index was 168.0, on a scale in which 100 was the U.S. average. Industrial rents were 36.8 percent above the national average, and office rents were 36.3 percent higher. The state’s tax-burden index was not as outsize—111.1—but combined with the other factors, it helped push the state to an overall cost index of 124.2.

Yes, there is a substantive price to live in California. As I see it, if you own a car here, cost, registration and annual renewal taxes, and gasoline add to the cost much more than other states.
The study does hold out hope that somehow, the politicians and the people can stop this decline.
Regrettably, I am doubtful.
One of the reasons that Republicans are finding it difficult to fight against the Democrats is because many of those leaving the once Golden State are, Republicans. It is harder to gain more in a party that has ran on being the strict parent. The Dems, they are the cool parents. They are the ones to promise the moon. The Republicans try to say that there is a cost to those promises.
But, Republicans are just as guilty as Democrats in creating this mess. From former Gov. Pete Wilson, to Gray Davis, to Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger to the retread Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown. All at one point ended up raising taxes or trying to. None made the kind of tough choices that are desperately needed to get out from under.
And we are all losing.
What we need is for someone to tell the truth. To stand up to the state employee unions. To those that feed off of the state government teat. To stop this train wreck from continuing. To not just try to raise taxes but cut government. Merge departments. Get rid of redundancy. Eliminate unnecessary boards. Get a part-time state legislature.
I offer a bit in the last paragraph, but again, it is truth.
We do not need to raise taxes as much as we need to realize our state government is too big, too burdensome and a real danger to business large and small. As well as farmers and ranchers.
I hope that people read this study because it is the truth. It is a starting point to discuss a real way to reform that helps all people and stems the tide of domestic migration away from California.

Two More Reasons California Is Heading For Fiscal Armageddon

These two articles, one in the Left Angeles Times and the other in The Sacramento Bee, leave no doubt in this blogger's mind that the so-called political class really does not understand what financial mess they are leaving for us to pick up at some point in the future.
Lets start with the article in the Times about the California state legislature agreeing to a slew of pay raises for legislative aides.
According to the article about 1,000 aides received about $4,600,000 annually. So lets do some math. It turns out that the Dirty Thousand received about an average raise of $4,600. This on the heels of the same legislature forcing state employees to take a 4.62% pay cut to try to balance the state budget. Sure, there is always going to be some justification for these aides getting this nice pay raise. One is that they are trying to make up for years with no raises for these legislative lackeys.
BOO! HOO BOO! FRICKIN HOO!
But what you have to read is what some of these people are making. Some are making more than the state legislators themselves. Here is the money graph from this article:

The highest-paid aide to receive a raise was Christopher Woods, chief budget consultant for the Assembly speaker. Woods' pay grew 3.6%, to $193,476. Catherine Abernathy, chief of staff for Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield), received 37%, for a salary of $65,832 a year, after taking on additional duties.

Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot?
Let me get this straight.
Christopher Woods, a budget consultant makes more than the Speaker of the Assembly, John Perez (D-Los Angeles)? FTR, Speaker Perez makes close to $96,000 a year. While both are totally obscene, Mr. Woods is more so because he is a consultant that should not be making more than a legislator, period. Yet he does.
At least Catherine Abernathy makes less than her boss, Assemblyman Shannon Grove. But her raise was an astounding 37%. Thirty frickin seven percent?!
And these same people asked the nuts-and-bolts state employees to take a close to five percent pay cut?
Unreal.
But this is California.
Oh, and the thrust of the Times article is not the outrage of the raises. No, it is about how this makes Gov. Jerry Moonbeam Brown's job of selling a tax hike harder. And it should be. If the very people wanting us to vote to raise our taxes won't tighten their belts, why in the hell should we vote for the tax hike in the first place?
This is, once again, a perfect case for making the state legislature a part-time one. There is no reason that we need all of these paid aides to promote the very legislation that continues to chip away at our freedoms in this once Golden State.
But if you think that is bad, the article by Dan Walters in the Sacramento Bee points not just to this outrage but the outage of Gov. Moonbeam Brown pushing for a "bullet train" that no one wants. Oh, Gov. Moonbeam Brown made sure that two of the state's major media markets, Los Angeles and San Francisco, would put this at the top of the news when he signed legislation to sell bonds to financially support this boondoggle. Yet Gov. Moonbeam Brown did not step foot in the Central Valley? Why not? Because opposition is the strongest there than any other part of the state. Yet the state as a whole does not support this now. Why the push? I guess it is because Gov. Moonbeam Brown is so hellbent on making this a reality, that he will even dismiss the voters that oppose it.
Get it? We are pretty much too stupid to know what is good for us.
It is OK to give pay raises to state sycophants, er aides, but the rest, well you get a pay cut and you will enjoy it. Be thankful that you have a job, right?
And you know, you will love this "bullet train" at some point. Whenever it is built. Just take it, California.
The arrogance of the Sacramento political class, Democrats and Republicans must be knocked down. It is one of the reasons to oppose all tax hike plans on the November ballot. We must rise up and demand that the legislature be put back to a part-time body of true citizen legislators. Not career pols that have put this state on a fast track to financial Armageddon.