Shame, Shame, Shame!

The New York Times has excoreated Californians for voting against more tax-and-spend (and tax some more) policies. Ah, yes. Shame on those of us who work for a living, for wanting to keep more of our hard-earned money so we can continue living in the most expensive state in the Union without being on the government dole. We should all hang our heads because we are so very selfish for not wanting to continue to send our money to Sacramento. What a bunch of ingrates we are! How dare we prevent more funding for the n'er-do-wells in government who are already too busy spending our tax money to actually get a real job? What an outrage that we may actually have to trim the fat off the budgets of the state's various bureaucracies, not the least of which are education system, environmental regulating agencies, and *gasp* welfare benefits! Mea culpa.

Of special note, all of the emphasis is being placed on cuts in the state's education system. First off, look at how liberals love to use children as a human shield for their policies. Strictly looking at the amount of money spent per child in California and then looking at the results, I'd say that California's education system has been a poor investment. Students graduating from high school should have enough education to either go to college or get an entry-level job. I hate to break it to you, but there are teenagers graduating who can barely read and write at the sixth grade level. Don't even get me started on the lack of work ethic or professionalism of these alleged young adults. And why should they have to work for achievement in academics? After all, in the state of California teachers seem to have made it a regular practice to pass the failing students (we don't want to damage their budding self-esteem). When they graduate with their Cracker Jack diploma, they can continue to live off their parents or apply for welfare benefits. Meanwhile, the California Teacher's Assocation is allowed to engage in the type of behavior that helped the United Auto Workers bring down the auto industry in this country. Think fat pensions, tenure based on seniority (not performance), and a political action committee that might as well be a branch office for the DNC.

The governor, in an effort to scaremonger us into voting for higher taxes and more borrowing, threatened to cut funding for law enforcement and firefighters...during a wildfire that destroyed 80 homes and almost 8000 acres in the Santa Barbara area. That's low (even for a politician). Why not reduce welfare benefits and use that money to maintain the funding for law enforcement and emergency services? Reducing welfare would serve multiple purposes. It would take away the incentive for laziness, incentivize hard work, and possibly discourage some would-be illegal aliens from coming here. I also bet you would see a precipitous drop in the number of pregnant, unwed mothers in California.

We should be ashamed of ourselves. Not for the outcome of yesterday's vote, but for the fact that it even had to take place. The last time the people of California were this focused on the state's budget issues was back when we recalled Gray Davis and elected "Ah-nuld". California's budget mess should have been straightened out then, rather than enacting some feel-good brand of bipartisanship that only kicked the can down the road. Only now that individuals and businesses are relocating to less hostile environments (and taking their tax dollars with them) are the politicians being faced with having to enact real budget reform. Let's hope that Californians have finally learned a lesson that they won't soon forget.

"Why Make Trillions When We Could Make...Billions?"

In an effort to show that he is working on maintaining a balanced federal budget, the Lord Messiah, Barack Obama the Most Merciful (LMBOMM, for short) had told his Cabinet that they must cut $100 million in spending from the proposed $3.5 trillion budget (see the story here). For visual reference,

that is this many: $100,000,000

from this many: $3,500,000,000,000

Do you notice something strange about this? The amount to be cut is only 0.0029% of the budget! Apparently, our "articulate, bright and clean" president (per our vice president's description) either really sucks at math, or is a graduate of the Dr. Evil School of Economics, which is located on the same campus as the Joe Biden Institute of ABCs and 123s (and the Derek Zoolander School for Kids Who Don't Read Good, and Want to Learn How to Do Other Stuff Good Too). Maybe I'm being too hard on Obama. After all he may have meant to to say $100 billion, but the teleprompter technician miskeyed it.

All joking aside, though, even $100 billion would be a pittance compared to the size of this budget (it would only be a 2.9% reduction). Just think about it. Three. And One-Half. Trillion. Dollars. There is slightly over 300 million people in the U.S. That means that if they decided to divy this up to every man, woman, and child we would each get $11,666.67. Of course, that wouldn't happen because the people that make over $250,000 a year are included in that 300 million people. This budget is 60 times Bill Gates' estimated net worth. If you hear a peculiar sucking sound, that's the sound of your hard-earned money leaving your wallet. Don't worry, though. Obama is going to "spread the wealth around" and make things better for you...with your own money.

Real Change is My Cup of T.E.A.

A few things caught my attention about yesterday's TEA (Taxed Enough Already) parties. First off, how very normal the attendees looked. If one were to believe Janet Napolitano, we should have been looking at a bunch of fatigues-wearing, gun-toting Aryan Nation and Ruby Ridge types. We should have also expected to see effigies of Obama being burned or hanging from a noose. Another thing that struck me was how the media coverage largely focused on reaction from elected officials (i.e. the targets of these tea parties), not what was being said at the rallies. Any attention that was drawn to the attendees contained the following: 1) these were all orchestrated by conservative think-tanks and talk radio, 2) attendees are nothing more than anti-government malcontents, and 3) the attendees fit the Department of Homeland Security's description of the "right-wing extremist". The drive-bys also had a penchant for referring to participants as "teabaggers". Use urbandictionary.com to look it up, because I'm not going to explain it here (this isn't a public high school sex ed class).

Now, I attended one of the the tea parties here on the central coast of California. There were anywhere from 1500 to 2000 people. This was just one of the seven tea parties held between Ventura and Monterey (that I know of). The crowd had people of all ages, ethnicities, and walks of life. Attendees were unfailingly polite, even when the event was over and everyone was trying to vacate the parking lot. There were no riots, no burning cars, and no one attacking the police detail. In short, we were better behaved than most California protesters (unlike the protests that followed the passage of Prop 8).

In addition to protesting higher federal taxation, we were also protesting higher state taxes and onerous environmental regulations based on incomplete or fake research. California has the seventh largest economy in the world. Why is it then that California is in tank with an ever-increasing budget gap, while we have the highest income tax rate in the nation (and the sixth highest per capita total taxation)? Our current legislators think that the solution is to increase our income taxes, our sales tax, the fuel tax, the alcohol tax, the tobacco tax, and our vehicle registration fees. On top of these increases are new taxes on services such as auto repair and veterinary care.

Why do we have regulations in our state that stifle economic growth in the name of "environmental preservation" when there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that these measures actually work? The last thing California needs is the tax base leaving for places like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado. Or, in the case of some of my wiser friends, Texas. On a side note, can I adopt Rick Perry as my governor? Between that, and having Rudy Giuliani run for mayor of Los Angeles we could really clean up California. All I'm saying is think about it.

Who's going to pay taxes to support welfare benefits and state employee retirement plans? Illegal aliens and welfare recipients don't pay income taxes and theoretically don't pay very many other taxes, either. Even supposedly recession-proof industries like engineering and health care are suffering here, thanks to an orgy of lawsuits and state-funded programs ruining any prospect of private sector survival. California, and other welfare states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and New York are prime examples of what the rest of the nation will become if people don't wake up and take action. The tea parties were a great first step...now we need the follow-through to bring about change that we can really believe in (without the aid of a teleprompter).