A California Republican

The CTA is almost ready to go with its sales-tax proposal. They are targeting it to go on a November 2009 Special Election that has not yet been called - and may never be called.

There is a certain irony in this plan. The CTA originally pushed for Prop. 98 because it was a way to ensure an adequate elvel of funding for schools without the need for a tax hike. Therefore, it is ironic that they are saying the proposition which they drafted and lobbied for is not doing its job, and they need a tax hike.

They are, in effect, saying that they were wrong with Prop. 98 and there does need to be a tax hike. So, if that is the truth, then they also need to campaign to rescind Prop. 98.

The CTA’s plan to raise the sales tax would raise $5 to $6 billion a year. The only place that the money could not be spent is on administration - but it could be spent on teachers. There is no guarantee that it goes to the classroom to help students.

The CTA needs to get 694,354 signatures to put this measure on the ballot. They have yet to get it approved on by the Attorney General. The CTA is also banking on there being a Novemeber special election.

Why a special election? Voter turnout is lower in special elections. Only people who are issues voters turn out in special elections, which means the CTA is more likely to pass it in a special election. If they have to wait until the general primary election, when more voters turn out than issues voters, it is less likely to pass.

So what is the CTA going to do? No one knows.

In California, everyone from teachers to construction workers are holding their breath - hoping that the federal stimulus package will have money for them.

The stimulus bill, that the President hopes to sign on Friday, is not just a package of spending increases and tax cuts. It is also a way for the Democrats to rewrite laws and engage in restructuring issues to advance their goals and programs.

Included in the stimulus package is a provision for anyone recieving unemployment to be put onto Medicaid - regardless of their other assets. In fact, the language states that there can be no need based qualification. The federal government is commiting to cover 100% of the costs for this through December 2010. What about after that? States are going to get used to this influx of money. They are going to be mad when the influx of money ends, and there are still the requirements to put these people on Medicad (and their families too).

There is also money included to help laid-off workers retain the same health plans they had from their former employers.

This is one step closer to Universal health care. The federal government is spending money they don’t hav eto advance priorities of the Democrats.

Under this bill, the federal government would pay 65% of the premiums for laid-off workers health insurance premiums for a year. There are NO income or means test with this. The Republicans want to limit this coverage to people who had annual incomes of less than $100,000 or assets worth less than $1 million. They also want to prevent people with more than $1 million of family income from taking advantage of the Medicaid option for unemployed workers (which also can have no means test under the current language of the bill). Allowing unrestricted access to these programs for people with money will lead to abuse of the programs, a higher cost than estimated, and is fiscally irresponsible.

A priority of the Republicans needs to be stopping this. There is a total of $825 billion in the bill, $127 billion to cover health insurance and some to cover education. The federal government doesn’t have this money. They are going to have to raise the debt limit and spend the country more into debt.

If there was a plan to get the country out of debt and stimulate the economy - I would tell Republicans to support it. When the plan is simply to spend more money and get into more debt, the plan is fiscally irresponsible and needs to be quashed.

As a side note - the stimulus bill seems to have a lot of money for California, which would make a budget solution easier because there might be less of a hole if the federal government fills some of it. However, the influx of federal money is temporary and does not relive the Legislature of their duty to fix the chronic spending imbalance in the state budget.

A spending cap for California is a good idea.

Liberal activists are worried that the budget deal might include a spending cap. This would allow the Democrats to win Republican support for tax increase - maybe.

Activists say a spending cap would cripple state government. I doubt this is true. Like all things in the state, I am sure there will be a way for the Legislature to over-ride it. Additionally, it might have to go before the voters - in which case the Democrats will campaign against it with a TON of money and it will lose. Despite the loss, the Democrats would still get their tax increases, because those won’t go before the voters.

However, the liklihood is that Republicans will require a spending cap to be vote-proof: if a spending cap is defeated by the voters, any agreed-upon tax hikes would have to be rescinded.

The argument against a spending cap is that it will force the state to make cuts instead in later years, and that it will not allow California to respond to the growing needs of the population.

However, any spending cap is going to include a provision to increase spending with increased population and inflation. All that a spending cap will require is that the state not create new programs without cutting old ones. I think the state does too much anyways - the smaller the state government services and interference - the better. If the state wants to create new programs, it should have to cut old ones that are not working. There is a program for everything, and hardly any of them work, so they should be cut before another program for a similar circumstance can be put into place.

A spending cap will require thought before spending. Something that all families have to do, and now the Legislature would have to do as well.

If this can be done, the Republicans will have the ultimate victory. In a year, and a state, where Republican ideals and values are being crushed, this would be a huge win.

A spending cap will also stabalize the budget, because lawmakers will know what they can deal with. The proposed spending cap would likely include a provision that any amount of money recieved above the level of growth allowed must be set aside for bad years - that way there wouldn’t have to be cuts.

This is an idea that makes sense. Which is probably why it won’t happen in California. The law makers here - and most of the voters - are devoid of common sense.

We’ve all seen them. The drivers we think are dumb. The ones who read a book or newspaper while driving, the woman who is putting on her mascara, the man who is shaving. Don’t laugh, you have seen these drivers on the road.

Begining on January 1, 2009, texting becomes illegal to do while driving. Talking on your cell phone without a hands free device is already illegal in California. Now texting while driving is also illegal. These laws give the term “nanny state” a whole new meaning.

Proponents of these laws cite the number of accidents and problems caused by people doing these activities as a need for the laws. I cite common sense as a point against these laws. People always do illegal things on the roads in California (speeding comes to mind). The laws don’t stop them. We have all seen the people who still talk on their phones without the hands-free device. That law has been in effect for a while, and people still break it routinely. Did the law really make the roads a safer place?

I understand that not everyone operates under common sense while driving a car. Some people seem to think that they need to finish that game of pinball on their cell phone while driving, or read the newspaper - because of course these things will disappear if they wait until they are not driving. But do we really need this law?

The fine for the first offense is $20.00, any other instances and the fine is $50.00.

If you want to make something illegal, make the fine LARGE. If the fine doesn’t hit people in the pocketbook, they are not going to pay attention to the law. Take speeding as an example. The fines get huge, into the hundreds of dollars. This doesn’t stop people from speeding. So how effective is a $20.00 or $50.00 fine going to be?

Maybe the fine should be $450.00 and $50.00 can go to the CHP and the rest to the General Fund. Raise the fees for breaking the laws across the board, and put the difference between the current fine and the new fine into the General Fund. There is a budget solution!

But for now, I bet no one stops texting in their car. Some people just lack common sense.

It is late January. According to the best estimates, the state runs out of money at the end of the week.

And there is still no budget solution.

What are lawmakers doing? They are in negotiation - or so their staff members say. I assume they are also sleeping and eating, answering phone calls, dealing with lobbyists and other people, and working on legislation that they want passed.

When you have a serious problem, you devote ALL your attention to it until it is fixed. These guys should be put in a room and locked in until they come with a solution. Sometimes the best way to come up with a solution is to work on it until you have one. That is not what the legislators are doing.

Maybe it is because the solutions do not affect them. I am not sure most of them would feel an increase in the sales tax, the car tax or anything else they want to raise. They won’t feel the cuts they want - and need - to make. Instead, they are insulated from the severity of the problem while they remain in Sacramento.

I don’t argue that cuts need to be made. But the cuts the legislators are looking at do not strike to the heart of the problem.

The problem is that California overspends. We overspend on programs that include illegal immigrants. Commissions and boards - and the salaries that go to commissioners and board members - need to be cut. Do we really need all of them?

The claim is that it is too hard to find waste in government. I disagree. Cut jobs. Many departments have vacant positions all the time. Cut those positions, and slash the budgets of departments accordingly. Make departments hold up to private sector ratios. If the private sector has 2 accountants for every 100 workers, then the state should be held to the same standard. I can tell you that most HR offices in the state are overstaffed and a waste.

A principle that doesn’t seem to be understood in this mess is that a solution has to be found. The debt cannot continue to rise.

At some point people are going to move out of the state. It becomes cheaper to live on unemployment and social security in the midwest than it is in California. Maybe we should create a program to move all our low-income/state-income dependant people to the midwest? That would solve part of the problem

We need creative solutions - and permanent ones.

It just seems that no one is doing anything about the solution, and only talking about the problem.

There is a bill that passed the Senate late Thursday night. Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, was introduced after a Supreme Court ruling in 2007 rejected a $360,000 award in back pay to Lilly Ledbetter, an Alabama woman who worked for Goodyear Tire and Rubber. Ledbetter had discovered a large gap between her salary and that of her male colleagues, stretching back years.

The Supreme Court threw out her case, saying she had passed the 180 day statute of limitations on bringing a claim. The Democrats say that the law is too restrictive.

Often times the wage discrimination cannot be found within the statute of limitations. Some times it isn’t even thought of as wage discrimination.

I have a sense of disbelief with this situation. Are you telling me people are still paying people based on their genders?! I highly doubt this is so, when most jobs advertise with the pay scale intact.

Women earn less over a life time. Women have babies, leave work for maternity leave, and are often the ones who have to leave work to pick up the sick kid, watch the sick parent etc. It is just a fact of life that these are things expected of women.

To me, this smacks of the Equal Rights Amendment that the Democrats want in the Constitution. The ERA would prohibit discrimination in wages based on gender (and some other categories). Here’s the thing - I already have teh 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments that require that I be treated the same as a male. I don’t need a special one for me.

Nor do I need a special law to allow for greater time to deal with wage discrimination. I simply need to be alert and know my own worth.

I am against the bailout that the federal government made to the banks, for many reasons.

The first is this: Why should my money go to bailout an industry that had bad business practices? If I used the same practices in my life as the banks did in theirs, no one would bail me out. In fact, I would probably end up in jail for fraud. But for the banking industry, I guess the rules don’t apply.

I understand that without a bailout there would’ve been a larger impact on the economy. But that is what economies do - they go through recessions, depressions and booms. When you cycle through one, you will cycle through the others.

Here’s my second reason: The banks cannot tell you where the money went. Some banks, when asked, said the money is being spent on “general purposes” and there is “no way to track where it went.” Really? That’s what accounting is for. But I guess that banks don’t have to do real accounting with other people’s money - that is the same problem that got them into this mess.

It turns out that I am not the only person who objects to $700 billion being spent and not knowing where the money goes.

The Treasury Department’s top watchdog for the financial bailout says it’s practically impossible at the moment to tell where all the money has gone and is preparing to ask every bank and company that’s received a dollar from the $700 billion financial rescue to detail how the funds were used.

The statement is that if the taxpayer money is being used to bail them out, then the taxpayers should know where their money went. Over 300 institutions are being asked to submit a narrative outlining their “use or expected use” of bailout monies.

The FDIC has also asked the firms to state how this money is being used. Why is the FDIC interested? I think it is because they insure deposits in banks, and want to make sure the money is still there that they are insuring. The FDIC insurance policy is one reason why people still have faith in banks - even failing ones. People know their money will be there if they need it.

This is simply another indication that the federal government should get out of the bailout business. It is one thing if they provide a “secured loan” or something that will be paid back by the banks. But this was simply a free handout to the banks that our taxpayer dolloars paid for, and will continue to pay for.

In order to give out this money, the federal debt limit had to be raised. Why? Because the USA spends a lot of money  -more than we bring in through taxes. Therefore, we “deficit spend.” We spend money we don’t have. This will eventually lead to a bigger economic collapse when all that money has to be repaid.

So stop the bailouts. Failing industries and companies will fail, and then we will cycle upwards. But if we continue to bailout industries and companies, no one is going to learn and they will continue doing what they are doing.

Ballot measures are too easy to get on the ballot.

Nothing proves this more than the fact that there are three separate groups who are getting a title and summary of their ballot measures from the Secretary of State - and these three ballot measures are all in reaction to the same thing: the passage of Prop. 8

One ballot measure would overturn Prop 8. Another would remove the word marriage from state law and replace it with domestic partnerships - and leave the word marriage to religions. Yet another would repeal Prop. 8.

If these all sound similar - they are. There is nothing that prevents groups form placing similar measures on the same ballot. There are no requirements, save the 700,000 signatures required, to place something on the ballot.

This is too easy. And it causes too many problems.

It is voter approved initiatives and bonds that are causing funding problems to schools, restriction on funding to just about everywhere, and tying up of the General Fund dollars to various programs and agencies.

It is voter approved bonds that cause the state to have to repay billions in debt. For every bond that passes, double that amount and that is the true cost of the bond.

The California Performance Review has identified ways to save money. I belive they identified about $200 million in savings that could be achieved in California. The savings are through some restructuring and cutting waste in government. But yet only $40 million of their proposals are being suggested to be followed.

We paid good money for that study - let’s follow the recommendations.

Then, maybe, things like clean parks and beaches, and infrastructure can be worked on.

While we all settle in after the inauguration, it is clear that California still has a long way to go.

Instead of remaining in town and fixing the budget, or at least seeming to work on it, the legislative leaders took of for Washington DC. Leaving the state in fiscal and economic chaos. I understand yesterday was “historic” (although that would imply that other inaugurations were not part of history). But there are larger and pressing problems to be solved at home.

For instance, hundereds of millions of dollars have stopped flowing to nonprofits and contractors around the state. Work has stopped on infrastructure projects. It can actually cost more to stop work on a project than finish the project. Nonprofits who rely on grants from the state to do such things as: feed and help the homeless, help battered women, protect children from abuse, and provide a place for teens to go instead of joining gangs, are all out of money.

Anything that comes from bond money - borrowed money - has been stopped. No action on anything that comes from bond money. This includes school construction and environmental projects.

This is a concrete sign of the impact these fiscal disasters are having. What is wrong with the legislative leaders that they think this is a time to go celebrate?

Instead, they should come to work. And work hard. Not simply “play” at negotiations and meetings. They need to work on the budget, and only the budget, until these problems are solved.

I am writing this post while listening to the Inauguration Day coverage on the news.

I find it significant that President-elect Obama is going to be sworn in on the Lincoln Bible. The Lincoln Bible hasn’t been used to swear in a President since 1861 - when Lincoln was sworn in. It has been available for use, but no other President has chosen to use it.

Why did President-elect Obama? He has said he wants to be like Lincoln - there are worse people to want to be like.

Lincoln abolished slavery, gave the Gettysburg Address, ended the Civil War and kept the country together during a tumoltuous time.

I don’t think that Obama meant he wanted to preside over a Civil War. I am sure he didn’t. Nothing will tear this country down faster than a Civil War, and no one wants to see that.

I can only hope that what Obama meant was that he wants to bring the spirit of togetherness that Lincoln brought to the office. That he wants to be a healing President.

I wish him the best of luck. He is given a loaded deck: economically this country is in the hole. There is a skyrocketing deficit that will eventually crush the United States if it is not solved. There is massive unemployment. Programs that were meant to provide benefits to people (like Social Security and Medicare) are massively underfunded and tanking. He has to deal with a world that doesn’t like America. And part of the world won’t like us no matter what.

But as he is sworn in - he becomes my President (no matter that I didn’t vote for him and wouldn’t have chosen him if I had to). So I give him my best wishes and hope that he can succeed at being a healer.