R.I.P. California

California rivals the federal government in the number and excesses of its multiple bureaucracies. Its legislature is the envy of left wing Democrats everywhere. It now has the perfect governor—Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. It is still feeling the effects of the administration of blockhead governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

To paraphrase Hannibal Smith of the A Team, “they love it when a plan comes together.” The leaders and their faithful sheep have a plan that they think will make California green and wealthy. The citizens of Lotus Land have a nearly infinite capacity for self-delusion. Their plan is actually organized suicide by green pipedreams, regulation and taxation. The Rev. Jim Jones only needed to stay in California and wait another thirty years or so, and he could have been governor.

I’m going to list some of the most egregious excesses of California governance. But there’s method to my madness. Americans in general, and conservative Republicans specifically need an occasional reminder of what could happen to them in the other states if The One is re-elected president along with a Democratic Congress.

Those of us who live in the Central Valley are experiencing a double-whammy. California has been the breadbasket of America for nearly a century. But no more. The bureaucrats have decided that the preservation of an obscure species of fish that holds no known niche in the macro-ecosystem is more important than water for the amber waves of grain and jobs for agricultural workers. In the case of Delta Smelt vs. Human Existence, the useless fish wins. This has been a joint effort of the federal EPA and California fellow-traveling bureaucracies. California embraced the EPA restrictions and added a few of its own. No water, no crops. Simple, no?

At the same time the state, in conspiracy with the Obama administration, has decided to transform the state that was built by the automobile into the state that runs on rails. Exploiting the misery and unemployment brought about by the artificial Central Valley drought, the boys in Sacramento and the boys in DC are shoving a high-speed rail project down the throats of Californians. And they have cynically chosen the Central Valley city of Bakersfield as the first leg of the run.

The train is supposed to run from San Francisco to Los Angeles, but since the resistance to the project in those towns is minimal, they chose a starting place where objections to the project could be overcome by the desperate need for jobs. Clever, huh? And never mind California is essentially bankrupt. Federal funds are available, but the state must bear the largest share of the costs of the project, which in two years have escalated from $30 billion to $96 billion without a single track being laid.

Another California bureaucracy has a plan for all Californians. The California Air Resources Board has determined that 15% of all the cars on the California roads must be fully electric by 2025. The legislature and the two most recent governors think that’s just dandy. In a state where distances between routine destinations are measured in hours and minutes rather than in miles, the state has mandated automobiles which will travel no more than sixty to eighty miles before needing a time-consuming recharge. That’s fine for the denizens of San Francisco where nothing is more than five miles from anything else. But what about the rest of the state?

At least they’re requiring you to purchase an automobile which can be converted into a heat source (accompanying illustration). In the event the weather turns cold, just pull over, kick your car somewhere near the battery compartment, and you will generate a warm fire. Sometimes immediately, but in other cases it might take as long as a week for the blaze to get going, so be careful where you park.

The federal government imposed light bulb standards on all Americans. You are expected to buy a “green” light bulb which contains dangerous levels of mercury in order to use less energy. “Not good enough,” said California. Those not fortunate enough to live near a Wal-Mart will have to buy 60 watt bulbs that used to cost twenty or thirty cents, and replace them with a $3.00 bulb, manufactured in China The new 60 watt bulb actually puts out about 57 watts of ghastly light, while a 75 watt puts out about 63 watts. They also don’t fit right in your nicer lamps, and they look absolutely hideous in a chandelier. Just follow the greenie brick road, and don’t ask questions.

Then there’s law enforcement. Or maybe we should call it law observation. When rioters like the Occupy Movement or Oakland gangs celebrating a Raiders victory loot and pillage, the police are allowed to observe, but laying a hand on an out-of-control anarchist is police brutality. This is not the fault of the police. The governor sees assault and property damage as abstract concepts that don’t happen in his home. The big city mayors express open sympathy with the bums and thugs, give meaningless orders about protecting public property, then forbid the police to do anything “violent” to prevent the occupations. The police in Oakland are expected to react to thrown cement blocks, knives and Molotov cocktails with harsh words and mean looks.

As for border-hopping illegal aliens, welcome to California, land of the freebie and home of the goodies. Bop on over to your local DMV, get a license to drive (en Espanol), then drive around the building and register to vote yourself even more largess from the few remaining taxpayers in the state. If you're old enough, you can also apply for admission to the state's colleges and universities, paying in-state tuition denied to actual American citizens from the other states.

Criminals are welcome as well. The legislature is about to get rid of that pesky “three strikes” law that kept criminals in prison and out of the Occupy camps. It’s very humanitarian, allowing the rapists to have victims of the opposite sex which are unavailable to them in the Graybar Hotel.

I guess this is my way of saying that if you’re a conservative who doesn’t like any of the current Republican candidates for president, think carefully about sitting on your hands or voting for Barack Obama in the general election. Barack Obama and his merry band of socialists have a single goal: Make the rest of the United States just like California.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

I Vetoed Vot ? !

Shown is Kahleeforneea Governor Arnold "Conan the Librarian" Schwarzenegger shortly after vetoing SB1460 which would have granted in-state tuition and fees to illegal immigrants seeking the additional benefit of a California state university or state college education. This means Californians will temporarily be spared more people feeding at the public trough who can't pronounce the name of the state that pays their wages.

Another sign of desperation for the Democrats and a rare display of guts by the Governator. The Democrats know that one out of five registered voters in California is of Hispanic descent. The Democrats have decided that it's better to alienate the rest of the population in order to hold on to their usual 2/3 of the Hispanic vote than to be honest about illegal immigration versus genuine, planned legal immigration. So despite last week's inability of the leftist, amnesty-loving Congress to pass the similar DREAM Act by attaching it to a defense appropriations bill, the Democrats decided to go for broke.

The federal bill and the California bill would have been another fast-track to amnesty. The federal act included giving citizenship to illegals who served in the military or spent two years in an accredited college or university. See how that works? First, misuse the taxpayers' money for "educating" illegals, then make them citizens. Since most college students, native or foreign, legal or illegal, white or Hispanic, can't read their own diplomas, the state funds used to educate the illegals would require teaching them only to be able to recognize the word "Democrat" on a ballot. Fortunately, both bills are dead ducks for now.

Even most Californians don't understand how their state colleges and universities are funded. The majority of Californians instinctively reject the idea of reducing tuition for illegals to the level of California residents and taxpayers, but there's much more to it. The cost and quality of an education at UC Berkeley is roughly comparable to that of Harvard. But at Harvard, all tuition money comes from private sources, and most university programs are paid for by immense endowments, with a little federal money thrown in for good measure.

At UC Berkeley, the tuition is approximately one-quarter that of Harvard, though the actual cost of the university programs are nearly identical. So the difference between the tuition and the actual cost is picked up, unlike Harvard, by the taxpayers of the State of California. So the illegals would not only be paying the same tuition as legal California citizens, the remainder of the cost would be picked up by the California taxpayers.

California college and university students from other states pay a much higher tuition than California residents (because their parents don't pay taxes in California), but the Democrats thought it would be a great idea to give better treatment to illegals than to give it to American citizens who inconveniently happen to be from another American state.

California is essentially bankrupt, and the infighting goes on daily as California's debts increase, its income decreases, and the budget remains undone. So since we don't have any money anyway, why not reduce the income even farther by charging lower tuition for illegals? I'm astounded, time and again, by the Alice-in-Wonderland logic of the Democrats.

But there is a catch. In order to qualify for the in-state tuition, the illegal must first have attended three years of California high school education before applying to the given college or university. In other words, after being here illegally, and illegally taking advantage of the free public schools, they should be rewarded in exactly the same manner as kids and parents who have lived legally in California and paid taxes to the state (including property taxes) for their entire lives. And they should pay less than American citizens from other states. Get it? Good. Explain it to me.

Schwarzenegger made a lengthy and windy speech, extolling the virtues of immigration and immigrants (natch), and reassuring the public of his love for Hispanics. But in separating the wheat from the chaff, you can actually find some real reasoning. I would sum up Schwarzenegger's position as "in-state tuition for illegals is not such a bad idea, just not a good idea right now." Typical RINO reasoning. Below is the reason I draw that conclusion:

"Unfortunately, given the precarious fiscal situation that the state faces, it would not be practical to adopt a new policy that would limit the financial aid available to students that are in California legally, in order to provide that benefit to those students who are not." In other words, if California were financially fat, it would be OK to grant reduced tuition and financial aid to illegals, but not just now.

"I am hoping that the funding level that I have proposed for higher education will still be enacted. However, with that uncertainty coupled with the ongoing fiscal liabilities California will continue to face in the coming years, the State needs to be especially cautious in even thinking of enacting a measure like this." Or, said another way, when times are good and the gummint has lots and lots of money, it's a good idea to be wildly incautious about considering such a measure. Well, half a loaf is better than none.

A side issue that Schwarzenegger didn't mention was both student loans and scholarships to pay the already-reduced tuition. California law requires that any student loan originating in California, and any scholarship funded by the State, must include an affidavit/declaration under penalty of perjury that the borrower/scholarship recipient is a legal resident of the State of California and the United States of America. Somehow, I think that requirement would have been routinely ignored had the federal and California bills been successful.

So Californians have temporarily dodged one small bullet in a very large leftist arsenal. Secretary of State-Governor-Mayor-Attorney General-Gubernatorial candidate Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown considers higher tuitions for illegals to be discriminatory. Republican opponent Meg Whitman is looking to cut costs, stem the tide of illegal immigrant benefits, and raise tuitions for all University of California students, and most California State University and Colleges students. The Democrats are likely to hold on to both houses of the California legislature, albeit by a much slimmer margin. If Brown wins, the bill will be resubmitted and will become law. If Whitman wins, the Democrats will no longer have a veto-proof legislature.

Given all that, the Democrats used stalking-horse pain-in-the-ass leftist/feminist lawyer Gloria Allred to create a late campaign ambush of Whitman. Tossing out common sense and the canon of ethics, Allred actually advised her client to admit publicly that she is here illegally, but had used forged documents at an employment agency to obtain employment with Whitman. That shows how much Democrats actually care about "undocumented workers." They will use an illegal as a sacrificial lamb just to throw mud at the Republican.

The public announcement and MSM coverage was almost laughably drowned in bathos. The weeping "victim" describing how she worked for twelve years at Whitman's residence at about $23 per hour (all under false pretenses, of course). She got caught when Social Security found a possible discrepancy in the records. Upon announcing to Whitman that she was indeed in the United States illegally, Whitman terminated her services forthwith. Then, says this phony victim, "Ms Whitman she not help me." Well, my dear, maybe you should have saved up some of that $23 per hour that she was generously paying you and set aside a legal fund for the inevitable criminal proceedings against you.

That one's going to backfire on the Democrats. First of all, it's not a legal matter, it's a political ambush. Second, if Allred and the Democrats actually cared about illegals, they would have quietly tried to find a way to save her butt instead of advising her to go public and practically beg to be arrested. Third, it was only very recently that Social Security even sent a tentative query about the "victim's" Social Security discrepancy, so the "victim's" elaborate ruse fooled a whole lot of people for many, many years. Fourth, Whitman denies that she ever saw the letter from Social Security, and there is absolutely no evidence that she knew about it before she saw the political hit-piece and saw the face of the ingrate that she had supported for over a decade.

Allred distorts the facts, and ignores the evidence that Whitman's husband saw the letter, wondered what it meant, and made a note in his handwriting on it asking "what does this mean?" But instead of making sure that Meg Whitman got it, he absently handed it to the poor, oppressed victim to pass on to Meg. Which essentially proves that Meg Whitman never saw it and never knew about it because the "victim" hid it from her. That's the so-called "damning document" that Allred thinks is going to make all Californians vote against Whitman. Whitman never saw it because the "victim" hid it, then after getting fired, boo-hooed her way into Allred's office.

So Thursday was just a bad day for liberals, leftists, amnesty-liars, Democrats, and illegal immigrants all the way around. Ah, if only every day were Thursday.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

California--Curioser And Curioser

Right now, Democrats are "running away" from Barack Obama in droves. Democrats hiding from a Democratic President. Here in California, we always do things differently. In the Golden State, the Republican candidate for governor is running away from the current Republican governor. There is one similarity, though. Like those Democrats, Republican Meg Whitman is running away from the governor because he's just too damned liberal.

Candidate Whitman is running on the concept that a government should be run like a successful business, not like an ATM. She is the type of Republican who will probably do very well in the general election in November, since she fits in with the majority in a state that overall tends to be moderate to liberal on social issues but looking for a sensible fiscal conservative to drag California back from the financial abyss. She's no movement conservative, nor is she a RINO. But next to the Governator, she looks like Calvin Coolidge.

Whitman has vowed to take on the unions, most particularly the fat public employees unions. She wants to cut taxes, but is even more adamant about cutting state expenses. She wants to see decent environmental concerns addressed without bankrupting and starving the state's major industries. She's only a very light shade of green, and that's in part from being around all that nice green money. While Schwarzenegger was busy ginning up green projects, making internal combustion engines into demons and pronouncing the advent of hydrogen-powered automobiles some time in this century while billing the taxpayers for them now, Whitman says that people must come before theoretical pollution control.

But the big break in the party came when Whitman announced that California can dig itself out of its budget hole by cracking down on waste, fraud and abuse in state spending. She has proposed a statewide grand jury that would investigate and indict those who have "fleeced the state treasury for billions of dollars. A key factor accounting for the massive overspending and continuing budget deficits is state government's failure to police itself well. A statewide grand jury would supply the real enforcement mechanism now lacking in state agencies and county grand juries."

Considering that she is implying at least criminal negligence, and that many of the spending disasters come from the governor's office, the Governator has decided not to endorse a candidate in the general election. In an ordinary year, the refusal of a Republican governor to endorse his proposed Republican successor would be a very bad thing. This year, not so much. It's not just that there is a strong opposition to tax and spend officials, but Republicans add enthusiasm to the mixture at the poll level by wanting to take a slap at Schwarzenegger for what they consider to be his surrender to the Democrats and various other liberals, most particularly the public sector unions and green weenies.

The Central Valley, once the breadbasket for half the western world, is blowing away with the wind because of the lack of water caused by the cutoff of supplies occasioned by the protection of a fish that serves no known purpose in the ecological scheme of things. Schwarzenegger announced that he supported the farmers and agricultural workers, but did absolutely nothing to help them get the eco-freaks off their backs and out of their lives. While other states have been actively defying the federal government, Schwarzenegger has essentially thrown his hands in the air in an attitude of "vot can I do?"

Yet somehow, "energy" funds seem to get spent at a breathtaking pace, and Whitman is demanding to know why. Her critics (most of them from Attorney General and Democrat gubernatorial candidate Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown's office) are asking what a statewide grand jury could do that county grand juries can't do. Whitman isn't a lawyer, but she plays one on the campaign trail. And she plays one rather well. That question is both naive and disingenuous. Statewide grand juries are not subject to the influence, partisanship and good-old-boy coziness of county grand juries. Business as usual isn't usually statewide business. Local fiefdoms merely perpetuate the "I got mine, up yours" attitude.

Scott Thorpe, executive director of the California District Attorney's Association, says that the statewide grand jury would be California's "only prosecuting authority that wasn't elected by the people," as if that's a bad thing. Thorpe plays on the tough prosecutor image held by the average voter, neglecting to mention that District Attorneys and their staffs are public employees participating at least in part in the waste Whitman wants to investigate.

In reply, Whitman spokesman Darrel Ng replied that the persistence of fraud shows that the current system doesn't work and that it's time to try something new. Says Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco, "A state grand jury would have a broader perspective than local prosecutors and would tackle cases that are slipping through the system. There is fraud on a statewide level. People are not concentrating on it, and there is no mechanism to handle it."

Jerry Brown's office offered that they had filed a record 165 criminal charges against Medi-Cal providers in 2009 recovering over $200 million in twelve months. Whitman replied that it was about time, now what about the $18.9 billion that appears to have been mis-spent through malfeasance and/or misfeasance since 2000? That includes a $1.25 billion program in state education which failed to improve test scores, more billions in fraud in welfare and workers' compensation, and even a $3 to $4 billion cost overrun for San Francisco Bay Bridge reconstruction.

Whitman has also called for a reduction in state employees by 40,000 state jobs. Jerry Brown is more concerned about how many people would be employed by the investigative grand jury, naturally. I can't give you a figure myself, but I suspect the answer is "a lot fewer than 40,000." Brown has no plan, but says he'll cut governmental inefficiency (not by criminal investigations, apparently) by "bringing all sides together and not raising taxes without voter approval." Interestingly, Brown also supports an initiative to reduce the number of votes required to pass tax increases and bond measures.

Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, seems to think he can solve all the state budget problems by targeting the growing program of domestic care for the low-income elderly and disabled. He hasn't noticed that a thorough investigation along those lines showed that overpayments, fraudulent or negligent, comprised at most 1% of the total payments. While Schwarzenegger dithers and chases the home-helpers and Brown says to "come now and reason together," Whitman says: "We're going to put in great systems, we're going to find that waste, fraud and abuse, we're going to convene a grand jury, and if you rip off the taxpayers of California, we're going to send you to jail."

Lord, I hope we have enough jails.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Watch Out World!

The Governator has boldly destroyed California's economy with his green/climate change agenda, and now he's heading to Copenhagen to pump up the rest of the world. If you're wondering where all those uninvited guests for the UN Summit on Climate Change came from, they're the California business people and working taxpayers who have exited the state in droves to get away from the oppressive and crippling legislation, rules and regulations foisted upon them by the beefy man-bot.

California is the leader in environmental pseudo-science and mindless legislation which has brought the world's fifth or sixth largest economy to, and perhaps over, the brink of ruin. More than 250,000 jobs were lost in California in one year alone, and today's official unemployment rate is 12.3% and climbing (the real figure is probably even higher when you include workers who have simply given up on the idea that they will ever be able to get a decent job again, run out of their unemployment insurance benefits, and ended up on welfare).

But never fear, he'll be back. And he announced recently that the green jobs creation will produce a whopping 400,000 jobs to replace the nearly million jobs which will have been lost by the end of the current five-year period. Aside from the fact that 400,000 is considerably less than a million, even a robot can be honest enough to admit that it will take ten to twelve years to produce those theoretical jobs.

The Kyoto Accord has nothing on California legislation. Many major nations never signed on to Kyoto, and those that did are not even close to making their goals. California has more control over its citizens than that. It has been three years since Ahnuld enthusiasically signed the job-killer bill also known as AB 32 which mandated that California reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. That bill alone is projected to cost the state nearly $72 billion per year, while costing consumers another $149 billion and killing 1.1 million real jobs. And the state government has used all means available to it to collect the taxes and enforce the rules necessary to achieve this lofty goal.

But that projection doesn't stop the determined Governator. When asked by a reporter if Schwarzenegger might consider modification of the legislation or temporary suspension of its harshest provisions during the big recession, the RINO (robot in name only) looked up at Skynet and replied: "I will not suspend regulations that are creating jobs and stimulating the economy." I think there are a few wires crossed in the man-bot's head.

Nothing in the present, real world will dissuade Ahnuld from his course of action. Originally somewhat hesitant about AB 32, he is now an enthusiastic booster of this pie-in-the-sky legislation. He sees things that never were, and never will be, and declares them to be the true facts. Amazing what they can do with computer programming these days, isn't it? He joyfully reports that many of the provisions of the bill won't even go into effect until 2012. That means that they will kick in right near the end of the current five-year downhill slide, making the present restrictions and mandates look like child's play. To any sane person, that means it's going to get worse. But to a humanlike machine it means "By then, the economy will continue to improve ('continue?'), helped by the growth of California's clean tech sector."

Those of us who watched the California Coastal Commission grab huge swaths of California land to "preserve the environment" and prevent development of any real substance thought that was as bad as it could get. We thought drying up the lush Central Valley farms and fields in order to protect a fish that is of no use to anybody was just a temporary disconnect. Yet most of these predations occurred before this sociocrat posing as a conservative Republican came into office. He is making those enviro-nuts look absolutely sane and reasonable in his zeal to turn California into a fictional movie paradise of the future.

"Today Kahleeforneea, Tomorrow the World" is Schwarzenegger's rallying cry as he heads off to the conference of highly-confused Euroweenies, Asian opt-outers, and African handout seekers. Watch out world--resist him not. He keeps coming back, and coming back, and coming back. He will not give up until he has destroyed humanity and replaced them with well-programmed, non-polluting, hydrogen and solar powered machines. The earth will be pristine again, but there won't be anybody there to appreciate it.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Ahnuld Burns The State Constitution

The Terminator just joined the liberals and RINOs in Sacramento in defying the will of the people of the State of California by burning another portion of the state constitution. That portion is legally known as Article I, Section 31, and is commonly known as the California Civil Rights Initiative. It clearly states that "The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

Apparently, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is still better at reading German (or Austrian, if you happen to be Barack Obama) than he is at reading plain English. Passed in 1996 by a clear majority of fifty-four percent, the measure was upheld by the California Supreme Court and upon federal appeal, unanimously upheld by the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Details, details. And petty constitutional details do not get in the way of social engineering liberal Democrats and RINOs.

The state legislature recently passed legislation which directs state agencies to award government contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, subcontracting fifteen percent of the work to minority-owned businesses and five percent to female-owned businesses. This assures that even the lowest qualified bidder will be disqualified until fifteen percent of contracts are awarded to minority businesses and five percent to businesses owned by women, regardless of the clear wording of the California Civil Rights Initiative (CCRI). The inmates have taken over the asylum.

On July 26, Governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill without comment (and without understanding, I would guess). Thus, California law is now in direct conflict with its own constitution and logically in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and 14th Amendment to the federal constitution. In a state already bogged down in multiple bureaucratic problems, facing bankruptcy and in complete disarray, the governor has chosen to make the problem worse. There will be immediate challenges to the legislation, and racial division is once again stoked as if this hadn't all been hashed out fully, completely and definitively thirteen years ago.

Former University of California Regent and conservative activist Ward Connerly was successful in getting the initiative passed, and moved on to get the same measure passed in thirteen other states so far. Of those, only California and Michigan have show consistent intentions to sidestep the provisions of the law. But this is beyond sidestepping--it's outright defiance.

My old friends at the Pacific Legal Foundation have already filed suit against the state (Ward Connerly and the American Rights Foundation are co-plaintiffs in the case). Here's what Connerly had to say: "These new quotas are a destructive and illegal attempt to pull California backward--back to a time when government routinely judged people by their skin color and sex. By enacting Proposition 209 (the CCRI), California voters clearly said that they wanted to move beyond that era of division, discrimination, and animosity. Unfortunately, the message still hasn't gotten through to many state lawmakers and, apparently, not even to the governor. The courts are going to have to instruct them that their constitutional duty is to defend equal rights and equal opportunity, not undermine them."

Liberals and big-government types love to play with constitutional provisions which leave what the state is allowed to do open to multiple interpretations. But they generally won't purposely go out of their way to ignore (or defy) a constitutional provision which clearly says what the government cannot do. And CCRI couldn't say it any more clearly: "Don't even think of performing any state action on the basis of minority status." Ahnuld and the legislature did exactly what they are forbidden in no uncertain terms to do. So far, there doesn't seem to be a single spokesman for the governor, the assembly or the state senate who is willing to make any statement of justification for their action.

There isn't even an economic justification for the action, particularly in a time of budget and monetary crisis. As Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Sharon Browne says: "The governor and the legislature also disregarded principles of sound budgeting, because projects are more expensive when they don't go the the lowest responsible bidder."

Any first year law student can tell you that the "subcontracting" ploy which avoids directly addressing the contractors themselves is a distinction without a difference. It's a non-operative legal fiction. It is a basic of constitutional law that you cannot do that which is constitutional (lowest bidder contractors)in an unconstitutional manner (the minorities subcontractor provision). Think of it this way. If for national security reasons, the Congress determines that a top-secret intercontinental ballistic missile must be entirely produced by American contractors, no agency is then allowed to write a contract with the contractor that says "but 15% of the parts being manufactured must be subcontracted out to North Korea."

I find myself asking the same question asked by La Shawn Barber at Townhall.com: "Why did these elected representatives ignore the will of the people and bring back government-mandated racial discrimination?"
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

San Francisco Diary--Journal Of An Exile

Another week, another alternate reality. San Francisco is never inconsistent. Whatever you would expect a normal town to do, you can be pretty sure San Francisco will do the opposite. I think the thing that amazes me is The City's amazing ability not only to face the same situations as other cities and come up with weirdly different solutions, but also its ability to search and find problems to be solved that nobody previously knew existed.

Note: We've spent a little time on a couple of our articles discussing Obama's Nobel Peace Prize. But San Francisco's opinion (as mentioned above), though not shocking, is a bit skewed from the overall American opinion. As you would expect, there was some exhilaration among the disciples. The rest of the reactions ranged from surprise to anger (but not conservative anger). The most common response to reporters' polls was confusion as to why he would get the prize this early and with no accomplishments. Many responders added the specfic reasons for their surprise. One said: "Why now, when Guantanamo remains open and troop levels have dropped significantly in Iraq and have grown in Afghanistan?" Are you starting to get the drift?

San Francisco Supervisor John Avalos introduced a resolution urging the United States federal government to end the U. S. Military occupation of Afghanistan while providing humanitarian aid to support the recovery of the country from the effects of the war. So you would be guessing properly if he is angry about Obama getting a peace award while America is conducting a war, any war, for any reason, at any time, in any place. That was the typical angry reaction in San Francisco.

NOTE: The National Republican Congressional Committee issued a press release which said: "If Nancy Pelosi's failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope [General] McChrystal is able to put her in her place." San Fran Nan responded with her usual brilliance and humility, responding with feminist non-sequiturs rather than actual argument: "It is really sad, they really don't understand how inappropriate that is. I am in my place. I am the Speaker of the House, the first woman Speaker of the House, and I am in my place because the House of Representatives voted me there. But that language isn't something I've heard in decades." Obviously, the Committee's comment was talking about putting women in their place. It couldn't have been about putting idiots in their place.

Nancy is also probably unaware that there is a major defection in the California Congressional delegation. Former San Francisco Mayor and current senior Senator from California Dianne Feinstein has come out in support of McChrystal and the troop surge with 40,000 new troops. She has chided the Messiah for his indecision, adding that he is endangering not only the war, but the lives of American military men and women as well as Afghan civilians.

Note: It's been a very gay week in San Francisco and the Bay Area. Former San Francisco Supervisor and current State Assembly"man" Tom Ammiano attended a Democratic fundraiser at San Francisco's famous Fairmont Hotel to which Governor Schwarzenneger was invited as a guest honorary speaker. While he was speaking, Ammiano repeatedly yelled "you lie." Ammiano finally got up, and in his best drama queen fashion, stormed out of the room while loudly proclaiming "he can kiss my ass." Knowing all about Ammiano, "kiss" was probably not the appropriate verb, but that's another story for another time.

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, known for his outspoken talk, is lambasting what he calls "highly inappropriate" behavior by San Francisco Democrats who were so openly hostile to the Governator. Brown elaborated that both the Governor and former President Clinton were invited to the fundraiser by the hosts, the organizers of the event. Clinton was unable to attend.

Note: The uncivilized behavior followed the Governor's earlier signature on a bill creating a state day to honor the slain San Francisco gay supervisor Harvey Milk Day. Ahnuld must not have heard the expression "no good deed goes unpunished." Ammiano was Milk's disciple and successor as the "Mayor of the Castro." None of that seemed to matter to the little twerp when there was an opportunity to act out. He occasionally forgets that once he was elected to public office his former career as a standup shock comic was supposed to be left behind. Democratic State Senator Mark Leno, also a graduate of the Castro Club, was appalled, and thanked the Governor for revisiting the Milk bill and deciding to sign it rather than veto it.

Note: Leno sponsored another gay rights bill which the Governor also signed. The Governor was under heavy pressure from multiple conservative and family groups not to sign the bill. But Mr. Maria Shriver seems to have gotten in touch with his gay side. For those who don't know, in upholding Proposition 8, the California Supreme Court held that all California gay marriages performed between its earlier decision upholding gay marriage and its subsequent ruling upholding Proposition 8's prohibition of gay marriage remained valid. That was a period of approximately five months. The bill provides two things: Gay couples who were married out of state will have their marriages recognized in California if the out-of-state marriage took place during that interim period. Those performed after Proposition 8 was upheld will not be treated as marriages, but will receive all the recognition California law gives to domestic partnerships.

The Governor would have been completely within his rights vetoing the bill, and would have suffered no serious political damage. He's a lame duck, and hasn't shown any desire to seek further political office. What political support that he still had from conservatives disappeared with the stroke of his pen on that bill. None of this had any effect on queen bee Ammiano.

Note: San Francisco had a large weekend rally to correspond with the one in DC requesting Obama to start doing something about his promises concerning gay marriage and gays in the military. Just like the confusion about Obama's peace prize, there seemed to be a large degree of mystification about why Obama continues to be paralyzed with indecision about the gay community's demands. But they just love the big lug. So a common remark was "I'd like to see it happen faster," said marcher Drew Wilhite who came to the event from Fresno. "But I understand that social change takes time." Wilhite maintains that Obama's unaltered lack of action is "a great start." Toward what, he wasn't entirely sure. He just likes presidential vows.

The event was preceded by a march across the Golden Gate Bridge which ended up at the demonstration in City Hall Plaza. Marcher Nell Barnes, also of Fresno, was not as kind as Wilhite. She said: "It's interesting to me that a man who comes from an oppressed race doesn't just do it, with a swipe of the pen." Barnes has not figured out that Obama is only half-black, and is therefore also half white oppressor. His measures will always be half-measures at best, and more likely simply half-assed.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Open Up That Golden Gate--And Let Me Out

California, there you go. San Franciscans just celebrated the 72nd anniversary of the completion of the landmark Golden Gate Bridge. It remains to be seen if it will still be there a year from now. With California's ongoing fiscal crisis, and the selling-off of public landmarks to raise money, by this time next year the Golden Gate Bridge might end up in Abu Dhabi or spanning the Dubai port. After all, Arizona got London Bridge a few years back.

Or maybe the feds can buy it with some newly printed funny money and rename it The Golden Obama Bridge. Ladies and gentlemen, California is a mess. Remember what Mao used to call America? A pitiful, helpless giant. He could just as easily been talking about our land of giant redwoods, vast deserts, majestic mountains, great metropolises, sandy beaches, and unique huge rivers of red ink. No longer satisfied with declaring that California needs to make draconian cuts in spending, the Governator has announced that the state has to make "beyond draconian cuts," whatever that means. But what is truly amazing is that it took the "leaders" in Sacramento this long to figure out that California has one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

While there is a national discussion about Obama moving the United States into full socialist mode in the near future, California arrived there a couple of years ago when its people began to realize that we have a whole lot of social welfare programs, a huge army of public employees, and no way to pay for it. Well, of course, there's always taxes. Keep raising them. Although California already had the highest sales tax rate in the nation, the state raised it again by 1% on April 1 of this year, and with local and county sales tax added in, we San Franciscans now pay 9.5% tax on all our non-food purchases. Can the food tax be far behind? We also claim the highest income tax rates of any state in the union. But spending has still continued to run away from revenue by a country mile.

Add to the problem the influx of a huge illegal population of immigrants, mostly from Mexico and you have a budget crisis of unparalleled proportions. Despite all the propaganda about illegals paying their own way, the simple fact is that services provided by the state to illegals cost far, far more than any income the state may receive from them in whatever taxes they choose to pay. And with unemployment in the state rapidly exceeding 11% of the work force, can anyone truly argue that the illegals are just coming here for the jobs? I guess they just want to do the jobs that nobody else wants to do, because there are no such jobs available in the first place.

Governor Schwarzenegger has announced that out of the clear blue sky, with no advance warning and unfathomable economics, the state must eliminate welfare, cut billions to schools, close state parks, eliminate multiple state projects, and (God forbid!) drastically cut back government employment. No kidding!

It would be "beyond draconian" if it weren't that California's drunken sailor spending spree has been so "beyond belief" to start with. Companies doing business in California have been cutting back on expenses and overhead, cutting work forces and even closing locations in logical reaction to the downturn in the economy. Why is this concept such a revelation to the geniuses in Sacramento? The mainstream media, largely liberal, have been in lockstep with the profligate spenders in Sacramento for years, so their shocked reaction would be maddening if it weren't so ironically funny. A sample of statewide headlines (courtesy of Scott Sabatini, a writer for the San Francisco Examiner): "Shock, awe greet Schwarzenegger's proposal to end welfare." The San Jose Mercury News. "Governor's plan could force some out of college." The Contra Costa Times. "Healthcare cuts would mean higher costs and possibly death, officials say." The Los Angeles Times. "Governor's budget beyond draconian." Capitol Weekly. "State budget puts Hearst Castle at risk." The Fresno Bee. "25 Bay Area parks may close from budget crisis." The San Francisco Chronicle.

We were shocked, shocked to discover that we were out of money. How is that possible? We still have plenty of checks left. Of course, you can understand part of the problem. A state Assemblyman, Jim Nielsen of Redding stated that "changes to welfare need to be scaled back rather than chopped off completely." The problem? Nielsen is a Republican. By California standards, he's even considered conservative (I hasten to add, I don't consider him any such thing). So you can imagine what the Democrats have been saying.

There's plenty of blame to go around. The state government was providing bread and circuses at a rate that would have shamed ancient Rome. But there were a whole lot of citizens who took those "gifts" who should have known better. They could have asked "who's paying for this?" Nevertheless, nothing gets in the way of legislators blaming the taxpayers. The 1% sales tax increase I mentioned above would have expired on July 1, 20011 if voters had approved the spending bills put before the voters this month. Several Sacramento politicians have now pointed the finger at the citizens for rejecting those state propositions by saying they have only themselves to blame for the sales tax now going well beyond 2011. As usual, it's a lie. The truth is that the only reason the 1% increase would have ended in 2011 is that the bills the people rejected would have replaced the 1% tax with new and even higher taxes on things other than direct sales taxation. Robbing from Peter to pay for Paul and Mary and their entire family.

Not counting illegal immigrants, California for the first time in its history has suffered a net loss in population. Businesses and individuals are fleeing in droves. Anybody want to guess why?


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...