While Leftists Shoot Republicans, California Sinks Into One Party Rule

Going Hugo Chavez one better, the Democrat controlled California legislator is taking action to ensure that one of their own who voted for the hated gas tax won't get recalled.  The legislator is rigging the system to make it harder and longer to recall State Senator Josh Newman (D-Fullerton) whose support for the increase made him a recall target.  From the Sacramento Bee:

Democrats are pushing late-blooming bills to significantly improve state Sen. Josh Newman’s odds of surviving an effort by the state GOP and others to recall him from office.
The proposed changes, which became public Monday morning, would add months to the existing timeline of certifying a recall election for the ballot. The measure would virtually assure that any recall election would be held at the regularly scheduled June 5, 2018 legislative primary election.
Regular election turnout historically is much higher than turnout for special elections, which helps Democrats.

How long before a third party movement among disaffected Democrats arises to resist this tyranny?  Don't hold your breath.  Meanwhile, people are voting with their feet, leaving California.

Jerry Brown: Making Hugo Chavez Proud

Today's California Election

At the promptings of my good friend Leslie Eastman, I am blogging today on the California election.   I stopped regular blogging a while back because I felt that my relative expertise regarding policy and limited government solutions were useless amidst a rising tide of cultural garbage.  Who cares about a nuanced strategy to defeat ISIS if we are willing to commit cultural suicide before the terrorists even reach our shores.  I am supporting Trump because he moved the Overton Window and is allowing us to even have a debate on these taboo subjects; but it is a measure of how swiftly America has fallen that views that were mainstream even 20 years ago are now considered extremist.  A few thoughts:

• Never have I voted with such dread as today. Futility of elections when culture is in the toilet never more apparent, even if #Trump wins. (From my twitter feed.)
• The minimum wage vote in San Diego is more proof of the cultural rot.  People vote for this, not on the basis that the minimum wage hike helps the poor, which it will not, but because "the feels".
• Mayor Faulconer in San Diego is the kind of pussy Republican who is indistinguishable from leftists except for his fellating of local business interests.  He has implemented the entire liberal agenda.  And I voted for him, because the alternatives were even worse for my local tax rate.
• Hillary's apparent victory today fills me with disgust as it makes clear that the Democratic party cares not one whit for the criminality of its nominee.

Damn. I feel better already.

On the lighter side, I am flying this flag for about a month to show the depth of my respect for Islam.

Pension Shortfall in Illinois - Implications for California

Sooner or later you run out of other people's money, Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying about socialism.  In Illinois, the day is coming sooner than in other states.  The pension shortfall for state workers is at $95 billion and growing at $17 million per day.  The WSJ calculates that this works out to $7300 for every man woman and child in the state.  Governor Quinn called for an emergency panel that would come up with some recommendation that would become law unless the legislature vetoed it.  If that sounds un-democratic and un-republican, to you, you're not alone.  For once I agree with a labor leader on the issue:

Daniel Montgomery, president of the Illinois Federation of Teachers, said he and other public-sector union leaders were staunchly opposed to Mr. Quinn's last-minute plan. 

"They abdicate their responsibility. They're elected to solve the problems of the state. Now they're saying: Let's create a commission of people who don't even have to be elected, who aren't responsible to anyone, and who may not know anything about the issue—and whatever they say becomes law," Mr. Montgomery said.

Precisely.  But hey, the lame duck session that failed to produce any kind of solution had time to address that most pressing problem, driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.  That's right, can't deal with a pension crisis but you can deal with a subject better left to the incoming legislators.  Governor Quinn said he will be happy to sign it.

Meanwhile, California's population isn't growing like it used to, with far less growth in the 0 to 10 age range than before.  How is this related?  Demographic imbalance exacerbates pension problems, whether for state workers or social security recipients.  So I expect Californians having fewer children in school to eventually translate to fewer workers to support the same number of state employees.  Because the state isn't going to reduce its employee count in the face of declining population.

Declining migration and falling birthrates have led to a drop in the number of children in California just as baby boomers reach retirement, creating an economic and demographic challenge for the nation's most populous state. 

But what really scared me for the future of the state's economy was this bit:

With more than 90% of the state's children under age 10 born in the state, "the majority of the next generation of workers will have been shaped by California's health and education systems,"

Given California's infamous inability to educate our youth, we are in deep trouble.

Fixing California - A Reform Agenda UPDATE

The Economist has a special report this week on the state of Democracy in California, and it is not good. For the last few years, I haven't agreed with the magazines editorial positions on a growing number of issues, but they are still first rate journalists and point out some important facts. But before we get to the article, they remind us of an important truth about democracy:

California is a reminder that democracy, like capitalism, can take many different forms, and that it is intended as a means to an end, the end being liberty. Should it ever mutate into a counterproductive form, reform becomes necessary.

This is not to suggest that any other form of government is preferable to democracy, only that the particular form that democracy takes must be judged by how well it advances liberty. No one can argue that our particular circumstances are advancing the cause of liberty nor accountable government, its necessary well-spring. Consider the following facts and their consequences.

• California transfers about 71% of its state revenue to local governments. Because the money comes from the state, local administrators no longer have much incentive to spend it efficiently.
• California has the 35th largest legislature, even though it is the most populous state. This means that the effects of gerrymander are even more pernicious, because it's very hard for a challenger to break through. The state has few state senators than Congressman.
• The responsibility for the budget is no longer really in the hands of the legislature. So many propositions have passed that constrain spending or taxing for particular programs, there is much less room for compromises that mark other states. The state's education minimal funding level formula has been compared alternately to the federal tax code and the general theory of relativity for its complexity.
  
• We elect any number of positions in the executive branch that are appointed or part of a party ticket in other states. This results in absurd situations where the governor can't travel for fear the Lt. Gov. will sign/veto some legislation or the attorney general and insurance commissioner seeking to burnish their cred and working at cross purposes. Given the situation, no is really held accountable.
  

I submit that these results are not consonant with a conservative or libertarian agenda. Some of the fault lies in the proposition process, but it is such an important check on the dysfunction, even if the cause of much of it, that I am not advocating its demise. But process matters and accountability matters. If we are to reform California, I propose the following reforms, which ironically, might have to be passed through the initiative process.

• Increase the number of state representatives to 200 and state senators to 100. This will diminish the effects of gerrymander because it will cause the make up of the legislature to more closely reflect the population. It could even be sold as increasing minority representation, which it would. I picked 100 state senators to emphasize to symbolize that in many ways, California is America.
• Only elect the Governor and Lieutenant Governor as a ticket. The attorney general, insurance commissioner, schools superintendent, etc. would all be appointees.
• Repeal all of the ballot measures that require minimum spending, or that direct tax monies on spending.
• Restore the local property tax and sales tax revenue to localities that spend the money. In other words, divorce the local governments from dependency on Sacramento. If local government starts harming the local economy, they will lose revenue. Local control is certainly a conservative virtue.

That's a start to the constitutional structural problems that are making democracy more difficult in the state. Welcome your thoughts on other reforms.

Cross posted to sdrostra.com.

Digital rights to photograph purchased from dreamstime.com; commercial re-use prohibited.

UPDATE

In the comments section at sdrostra, Erik reminded me of a big reason that the state transfers so much cash to the local governments. It is the Serrano v. Priest decision of 1971, the California state supreme court ruled that funding of public education based on property taxes that resulted in highly differential per pupil expenditures was unconstitutional. Since that time, the state has endeavored to equalize per pupil spending, resulting in the current system of massive transfers of taxes.

Protest AB 32 - Support Prop 23

With the state of California about to issue IOUs, again, you would think that opposition to AB32, California's version of cap & trade would be an easy call. As noted by Temple of Mut:

This is an important issue. A California State University study estimates that compliance with the regulations derived from AB32 will cost an average family cost about $3,900 per year, a small business about $50,000 per year, and will result in a total loss of business output in the range of $180 billion yearly.

Not such an easy call for Meg Whitman, who has said "she would probably vote against Proposition 23, which would create a moratorium on the state's landmark climate-change law." To let Meg know of her foolishness, join the Tea Party in protesting Meg at the Grand Hyatt next to the San Diego Convention Center, Friday, Aug 20 (tomorrow) at 5:00 p.m. Temple of Mut has the details.

About those IOUs.

From the Financial Times:

John Chiang, California’s controller, told the Financial Times that the state was once again flirting with IOUs because of a budget stalemate between Arnold Schwarzenegger, its governor, and the state government. The budget is two months late.

KT has an interesting comment about the effort to make the IOUs a pseudo-legal tender:

Essentially, this creates a new currency, one only valid within the government. The money is trapped entirely within the State economy since you can't use it to buy things from private parties. The idea of being able to use the IOUs within the State seems like a good idea until you pair it with our growing Justicialism. Consider this.

The government owns GM. Ford is a private company. If you can use IOUs to buy government products, but nothing else, then Ford is at a significant disadvantage. This example is Federal, but it illustrates the entangling nature of fascism. Working with the government becomes the preferred means of doing business when the government grows in all directions. Anyone left outside has all kinds of problems, from regulatory ones to being able to be paid.

Root Causes

Last March, I set out to explain the causes of the seemingly perennial budget madness in California (with pictures) and concluded the state employees pensions are the prime culprit. Until we deal with reducing the current and future pension costs, we are doomed to never have enough money to run the state. (By the way, this is why I was initially excited about Meg Whitman, she seemed to have a tough agenda to take on the unions.) In today's WSJ, R. Eden Martin comes to the same conclusions, and calls out some solutions, the comments I like follow:

Bailing out state pensions would be astronomically expensive. According to a Pew Foundation estimate this year, the total unfunded liabilities of the 50 states' pension funds amounted to about $1 trillion in 2008.
...
Current defined benefit pension plans would be "frozen," meaning no new benefits would be accrued under those plans.
...
Participating states could set up new retirement programs for both current and new employees in the form of defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s.
...
Though state laws vary, many states and cities may be able to take the legal position that they are not liable as guarantors if and when a pension fund goes under. In Illinois, a retiree's contract claim would be against the pension fund, not the state. In any event, practically speaking, it is not likely that retirees would be able to recover tens of billions of dollars in past pension claims against their states.

The ruling class' arrogance and greed has finally become too much for America's economy to handle. This is why I am voting for the candidates best positioned to take on the unions. This is making for some uncomfortable political bed fellows, but remember this single and simple truth:

Government growth threatens our liberty and our prosperity.

The sadly obligatory California same-sex ruling post

Dean again with my thoughts on what went down here in California a couple of days ago.



A FaceBook friend playfully chided on her wall that we all needed to get over our homophobia now that a federal judge struck down Prop. 8 .

Because supporters of gay marriage wanted so badly for this to be about homophobia, they got exactly what they wanted and as a result this whole ordeal became about intimidation, smearing and undemocratic end- arounds.

Now, before we get into this too deeply, let’s just say that we’re of two minds or more accurately, perhaps, two emotions regarding the issue of gay marriage. Flatly stated, we believe marriage to be that between a man and a woman. Period. Having said that, our passion index for this is relatively low. You won’t ever see us at a Pro Prop. 8 rally (if for no other reason than the fact we might be “outed”. More on this later.) nor will you ever see us in a knock down, drag out argument over the merits or detriments of gay marriage. It’s tough for us to argue against what two consenting adults want to do and how they wish to define it. (The issue of same-sex partners rearing children is another matter altogether that won’t be addressed here.)

However, where our passion index is quite sky-high is when a solitary figure, in this case, U.S. District Judge Vaughan R. Walker, strikes down what the voters of California had clearly stated as to the definition of marriage not just once but twice. It’s a phenomena that is catching, apparently, as just last week, a federal judge struck down a law in Arizona that flanges up with a Justice Department program regarding cooperation between local and federal officers with respect to immigration enforcement – the very same Justice Department that is bringing suit against Arizona for this same law.

Judge Walker ruled that California "has no interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions” Really? So that explains why the issue of defining marriage has shown up on the ballot twice already. And in the absence of any constitutionally- (State or U.S.) defined state of marriage, the voters, both times, defined marriage as that between a man and woman.

The jurist, a Republican appointee who is gay, cited extensive evidence from the trial to support his finding that there was not a rational basis for excluding gays and lesbians from marriage. In particular, he rejected the argument advanced by supporters of Proposition 8 that children of opposite-sex couples fare better than children of same-sex couples, saying that expert testimony in the trial provided no support for that argument.

"The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.

That’s nonsense. It’s called cultural tradition. A cultural tradition that has existed for thousands of years and which has informed various people and societies around the world, absent any moral or religious bias, that marriage is between a man and a woman. That Walker implies homophobia as the sole reason for believing in traditional marriage, he displays his own narrow-mindedness in this matter.

The trial appeared to be a lopsided show for the challengers, who called 16 witnesses, including researchers from the nation's top universities, and presented tearful testimony from gays and lesbians about why marriage mattered to them.

The backers of Proposition 8 called only two witnesses, and both made concessions under cross-examination that helped the other side.

The sponsors complained that Walker's pretrial rulings had been unfair and that some of their prospective witnesses decided not to testify out of fear for their safety.
When Walker ruled that he would broadcast portions of the trial on the Internet, Proposition 8 proponents fought him all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won a 5-4 ruling barring cameras in the courtroom.

When we said earlier we would worry about being “outed”, this is exactly what we were talking about. The thug tactics of the left resulted in Prop. 8 maps where the names and addresses of Prop. 8 donors were flagged on Google maps. So, congrats, people – your win was aided by previously behaving like a pack of brown shirt goons thus chilling any hopes of a fair hearing by your opposition.

So, this will be appealed to the Ninth circuit court of appeals and from there to the Supreme Court where all indications point to the fate of same-sex marriage in this country resting in the hands of the swing man, Anthony Kennedy.


Previous to this, we had felt that were we ever invited to a same-sex wedding, we would be honored to attend because it was not about us nor how we felt about same-sex marriage but about the happy couple. However, because of the undemocratic and thuggish nature of how this whole thing played out, the results are completely illegitimate in our mind and we now feel we could not attend such an event in good conscious.

Again, Congrats. Hope it was all worth it.


Previous posts on same-sex marriage, here.

This article has been cross-posted over at Beers with Demo.

Greek Update and a California Question

And no, I don't mean a frat party at UCSD. KT has been keeping up with the Greek debt situation and alerted us to the fact that the interest on Greek two year debt has shot up to 26%, "...26% is what you would pay on your credit cards if you missed a payment." My question is to what extent is California going to go the way of Greece? California can't print its own money, just as Greece can't print euros. California apparently lacks the political will to tackle its structural deficit, a la Greece. California will inevitably ask the feds for a bailout, much as the Greeks have done with the EU. And the promise of a bailout may come too little, too late to help. Bottom line, I wouldn't be holding California debt if I could help it, and that includes waiting on an income tax refund check, like I'm doing right now. There's a name for chumps like me that paid too much in taxes to the state and are now waiting for that check, Unsecured Creditors. Last in line for you, pal.