A California Republican

Presdient Obama held his “100 days” press conference tonight, and there was much that he had to say that struck me as simply wrong.

In this country we elect a President, not annoint a king. The President doesn’t have CEO powers over banks and auto industries. In fact, the President doesn’t even have the power to give them money, he can simply ask Congress to do it.

Which he did in the case of the banks. He got Congress to authorize a massive abilout for the abnks - no strings attached. The banks haven’t lent any more to people, and they haven’t been modifying loans. In fact, the bank abilout was so unsuccessful that there was an Administration official saying that the banks are going to need more money.

And then there is the case of the auto industry. The auto industry has to present plans to the Administration - and get President Obama’s approval on those plans - before anything can happen with them. The President is acting as king of the auto industry. There is nothing in his background to suggest that he has the knowledge to apporpriately restructure the auto industry. In fact, with his labor credentials, there should be cause for concern when he says that “Labor unions have given up so much, too much,” when refering to the auto industry.

The two industries are being treated very differently, and it is strikingly unfair. They should fail, all of them. The choices were made, and now the CEO’s need to pay the consequences, as do the people who have loans they cannot afford. Individual responsibility has lost its role, and in this press conference, nothing was clearer than the fact that President Obama thinks that the government needs to be in everyone’s life, and that the individual should step back and give over to the government.

Not in my lifetime.

There are several things that I am not a fan of…specifically in President Obama’s term so far.

The first is the bail-out. If you want to lengthen a recession, go ahead and bail out people and companies that should fail. All you are doing is lengthening the recession. You are also giving people incentive to make bad choices again. The federal government bailed them out once, why should they learn a lesson from their bad choices? The federal government will bail out again.

The economists are not certain that the bail out will work. And it hasn’t. How do we know this? The Administration recently said that they believe  there will have to be another round of bailouts to the banks. If the bailout would have worked the first time around, subsequent bailouts wouldn’t be necessary.

Then there is the way the First Family acted while visiting with the Queen in England. I have never been more embarassed of the First Family than at the moment those pictures were shown. The Obama family acted as if they were hillbillies and had no idea of proper manners.

In dealing with foriegn heads-of-state President Obama also knowtowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. For all the oturage that the left has about a polygamist ranch, places where women aren’t treated equally, gay-bashing and religion, President Obama certainly gave in to a King who rules a country where polygamy is common, women are not equal (by any stretch of the imagination), gays are beat and killed, and practicing any religion other than Islam will get you killed. The values that the left, and Presdient Obama, claims to stand against are embodied in Saudia Arabia, and he just bowed and knelt to the King - what impression do you think that leaves of American strength and commitment to American ideals?

Then he flew to Turkey and said: “We convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country.” Excuse me? For all that the left hates to acknowledge it, the founders of the country had Judeo-Christiam values. I am not aware what, exactly, Islamic faith has done “over the centuries” to further our country. I know that Muslims have done a lot, but being Muslim is different from saying the Islamic faith has done a lot of further the goals of the country.

President Obama objects to the term “terrorism.” Instead we will all be using the term “man-made disaster.” Really?  About the only man-made disaster that is aruond right now is the way the country is going. America is in the middle of a man-made disaster…the disaster that President Obama is making in this country and around the world.

Jerry Brown is a very strange man. He takes the job he was elected to do and neglects to do it. His job, as Attorney General, is to defend the propositions that the people vote into effect. His job is to prosecute those who are committing crimes against the state. He thinks his job is to run for Governor in the next election.

His latest tactic is to call Prop. 209 unconstitutional. Prop. 209, passed in 1996 with 54% of the voters, prohibits the government from giving preferential treatment to women and minorities. Brown says that it is unconstitutional because it prohibits all affirmative action programs. Sorry? How is prohibiting affirmative action unconstitutional?

There is nothing in the Constitution about affirmative action. Nothing. It says that, under the 14th Amendment, everyone has the same rights regardless of race, religion and gender. That’s it. Nothing about affirmative action.

Affirmative action doesn’t work. All it does is foster resentment among those who feel they are passed over for affirmative action candidates. It also puts those people who were promoted, or otherwise benefiting, from affirmative action in a bad spot with people who think they only got where they were because of affirmative action. There is nothing about affirmative action that doesn’t stink.

People get where they are on the basis of what they can do, their credentials, and who they are. We have an African-American President, a large percentage of non-white legislators, an immigrant Governor, and an African-American Attorney General. There are also numerous people who have succeeded without affirmative action. Affirmative action takes the responsibility for success out of the hands of individuals - which is where it belongs. If you want to succeed - you work hard and do your best. In order for people to do this, they must know that they have equal chances of being promoted.

Also, minorities in California are everyone. For the first time in history, there is no racial majority in California. So who would affirmative action benefit now?

Affirmative action is a bad idea. It smacks being condescending, as if people cannot succeed based on their own merits, and instead need something to help them. If you look at the make-up of the world today, you can see that affirmative action isn’t needed on racial and gender lines. If anything, affirmative action is needed in socio-economic lines: and we have that. It is called need-based aid and scholarships.

There was a recent posting in the Sacramento Bee that distrubed me. To prepare high school students for the upcoming standardized tests, the school put on various assemblies. There was one for blacks, one for latinos and one for asians. There wasn’t one for white students, but they could choose to go to one of the other assemblies.

Talk about discrimination!

The dictionary says that discrimination is making a distinction between things. Not all discrimination is bad. People can have discriminating judgement: the ability to choose correctly between two items. But discrimination based on race - that is ridiculous.

Some people might say its not discrimination because the people that were being discriminated against were white. That’s not true. Everyone was being discriminated against. The school seperated students on the basis of race - that’s racial discrimination - the seperation of groups, or distinction between groups - based on race. Discrimination doesn’t have to be against a minority. You can discriminate against the majority as well. Although there is no racial majority in California anymore, so everyone is a minority and can be discriminated against.

Why seperate students on the basis of race? The principal said it was to promote underachieving groups to do better on the tests. You know what helps students do better on standardized tests….teaching them to read, teaching math, and teaching critical thinking. Those three things help students do better on tests.

Seperating by race…that’s ridiculous.

There are a few days left in April, but at the moment the personal income tax received by the state is a little over $5 billion. That is less than half of what the Department of Finance predicted would come in this month.

April is the biggest tax reciept month because personal income taxes are due on April 15th. Normally there are large incomes on April 15th, 16th and 17th, and the revenues drop off sharply from there. At this point in time, there is less than half the projected revenues coming into the state.

Either a ton of people aren’t paying taxes (to the tune of $7 billion dollars) or the Department of Finance (again) flubbed their projections. The projections are important because they are the number that the Legislature has to use when balancing the budget. When income is less than the projected revenues, there becomes a larger gap between cash and spending. When the income exceeds revenue estimates, the gap between cash and spending narrows, or is closed completely.

At this point the state is already $8 billion in the hole. To know that revenues are down by almost 50% means that, if there were no more filings, the state would be $15 billion in the hole (the sum of the $8 billion and the $7 billion that the state is short by with income taxes). This number will be less than $15 billion because the revised internal estimates have the state bringing in approximately $3 billion more dollars in personal income taxes by the end of the month.

It is possible the state brings in $3 billion in a few days, but I wouldn’t count on it.

Bonds are being sold again, and the proceeds are - once again - going to the infrastructure (and other) projects that they fund. The spigot is back on, and projects are moving ahead.

This is great news for the construction industry, and terrible news for everyone else. It isn’t even that great of news for the construction industry because bond funds have to go to very specific projects. The smae guy who builds houses in the Inland valley cannot work on the carpool lane in San Francisco. The areas hardest hit by job losses in the construction industry won’t be helped by these bond funds.

Normally, with bond-funded projects, there is a bidding process because the funds are going to government agencies. That means any number of things, but one of the most damaging is that most government agencies (local and state) require that anyone bidding on bonds use union labor. This drives up the cost of the project by driving up the cost of the labor. It also means that smaller contractors or people who are not union, cannot get into the job.

So how much is this going to help the unemployment rate?

Construction accounts for approximately 11% of the economy in California. Some years it accounts for more, and some less, but 11% is the general number. So even if construction gears up 100% from these infrastructure projects - which it won’t do - it still doesn’t help the state all that much.

There is a lot of focus on the construction industry because they are the hardest hit, in terms of percentage of their workforce that is unemployed. There is also a focus on the constructino industry because they are the one place that government can really spend money, in construction and infrastructure. Also, this type of “bailout spending” worked before - in the Great Depression. You don’t need me to tell you that there are a ton of differences between today and the Great Depression - but we are trying the same old trick again.

The good news is that infrastructure is moving again. The bad news is that it won’t do much for the economy in California.

It wasn’tso long ago that voters approved a millionares tax to be spent on mental health programs. It also wasn’t that long ago the voters approved an additional cigarette tax in order to raise money for the First Five program: it helps children get preschool education and access to educational experiences that they might not otherwise get (that’s the goal, there are some abuses of the program, but a laudable goal). When those measures came to the voters, they passed. Now the Legislature wants a do-over.

Those two programs bring in a ton of money, and the money is dedicated to the various programs that it supports - First Five and mental health programs. No one argues that there is a HUGE need for mental health services in the low-income and homeless populations.. In fact, most of those people could probably use a little counseling. Even if it is only a shoulder to unload on so that someone, other than themselves, can hear their problems. However, they don’t have access to what they need, and the millionares tax was supposed to fund programs to provide mental health care. If there is a huge need, and people need these services, why are the voters being asked to remove money from the programs and give it to the General Fund?

The truth is that the Legislature has other priorities. They see these programs as eraseable. They want the money from these programs in the General Fund. After all, won’t the politicians in Sacramento know what mental health needs the homeless community in Merced has, better than the local Merced organizations and government? Why do they want the money? So they don’t have to make other difficult decisions.

The legislators want a do-over onthe vote, they want voters to go to the ballot box and say that they were wrong, lets give the $2 billion to the General Fund.

Legislators spend, but so do voters. Voters have approved enough bonds in the past few years to take the debt ratio to about 6% of the General Fund income. That means 6% of the money is tied up in bond payments, and that amount will only get higher as voters continue to spend and approve more bonds.

Lets all agree that they money stays where it is. Legislators need to make decisions based on reality, not decisions about how to alter their reality to make it easier to do their job.

But voters also need to take some responsibility and stop voting for bonds that do nothing but limit the state’s ability to spend the money elsewhere.

Everyone, voters and legislators, need to stop spending.

When a president is elected with a large percentage of the vote, and not just the vote in the electoral college, he is said to have a mandate. In the 2008 elections, President Obama won with a large percentage of the vote, and claims a mandate fo change.

The mandate he got was for change. It is for change from Bush to someone else. It is unclear if the mandate goes any further. The uproar over the bank bailouts, the homeowner bailouts, and the increase in government spending makes it clear that the mandate he received wasn’t for socialist-leaning policies. The mandate didn’t include a change to support those who made bad, individual decision. However, he is going to have to learn this the hard way. Evidently the backlash against the federal spending hasn’t hit Washington yet, but when it does, it will be something to behold.

Another mandate for change should be given to the California politicians. There is a call for a constitutional convention. This may not be the right way to go. California politics are so divided, that it will be impossible to get the required number of votes to re-write the state constitution. Everyone is going to want their pet project in the constitution, or their pet group protected, and it will fail to win the support of the voters.

But a mandate can be given at the ballot box this May. On May 19 California voters are being asked to vote on ballot propositions that can change the way the government works. Proposition 1A will place a spending limit on the government. Yes, it will lengthen the sales tax increase, but it will change the way the government does budgets. It is a good thing. It stinks that it is paired with the sales tax increase, and for that reason alone many people want to vote it down. But think of the change that can occur with a spending limit. In order to government to do more intrusion in to our lives, they would have to look at the programs they already have and decide what is effective, what isn’t, and cut money from the less effective programs to create new programs, or give more money to effective programs. As the state grows, so will the spending limit. This is a good idea.

Vote down the rest of the propositions, all they are is the same old borowing schemes. If you vote for the other propositions, be aware that you are not giving a mandate for change to the California politicians - you are saying that they can do the same old borowing scheme and you are okay with it.

Give a mandate for change, vote yes on Prop. 1A

The 2008 elections were important. Today, the data from the elections is still being studied. One of the things that bothers some political scientists is how to differentiate those who voted for President Obama because of what he stands for and who he is, versus those who voted for him because he was “Not Bush.” The slogan of the Obama campaign “Change” was symbolic of the mood of many voters in the country - they wanted a “not Bush” and the Republicans were “with Bush” so they voted against the Republican candidate rather than for the Democratic candidate.

There is much to be said for the voters’ willingness to elect an African-American candidate. There was an uproar nearly 50 years ago when a white, Catholic man wanted to become president. You didn’t see the same uproar about an African-American man. That shows an evolution in the attitude of voters. There was still a lot of backlash along religious lines - mainly for Romney, a Mormon candidate - that shows America has become more open to racial differences than religious differences.

California still has not elected anything but a white, male for the post of governor. Maybe the election of President Obama will tell California voters that it is okay for something other than a white man to be in charge. The 2008 elections signaled an evolution, a showing that the American people don’t seperate on the basis of race so much as they seperate along party lines, based on jobs and occupations, and religious lines. This is an evolution form the 60’s - and one that has needed to happen for a long time.

There are many, many people out there who claim to be liberal. For liberals, it is the commitment of the community, or government, to individuals that matters. The government provides welfare, social security and medicare because they are committed to the individual, and  making sure that the individual can survive.

If you are liberal, you probably care about the poor, the needy, animals, the environment and children. Furthermore, in direct opposition to the way conservatives think, you probably think the government should be involved in these issues. Sometimes people believe the government should be involved because the community and families don’t take care of these issues. And sometimes liberals simply believe the government can take care of the issues better than anyone else. When someone enters into a mortgage for a house they cannot afford and then loses the house when the mortgage payment goes up, the government should bail them out to stop more houses from being forclosed on. The government should provide a basic level of living to people so that no one has to go without.

Conservatives tend to take a different track. The power of the individual rests with the individual and the choices they make. A person who makes a bad mortgage choice should lose their home. Furthermore, bailing the person out doesn’t make them learn any sort of lesson, and they will engage in this behavior again because they know the government will bail them out. Communities should take care of the poor in their community. Families should take care of their elderly parents/grandparents and orphaned children. The government shouldn’t be involved.

Well, the truth is that the government doesn’t do a good job with the programs it runs. Local, community-based programs do a much better job with caring for the elderly, poor, hungry, children, and helping people find work. In honor of the local, community-based programs there should be a movement.

The government gives people a tax return, or tax credit. Everyone should take $20.00 of that credit/refund and give it to a local community organization that is involved in something you believe in. You cannot talk the talk of being a liberal without giving to the organizations that help your cause - walking the walk. Just like conservatives who want the government to get out of the “helping” people business need to give to organizations that do a better job than the government.

Give $20.00 to an organization in your community that engages in activities you think are beneficial. The good it will do is enormous.