About Me

Name: Playful Walrus
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

California Constitutional Convention - Another Voice

Patrick Collins, director of the Claremont Institute's Golden State Center for State and Local Government, responded to a recent Los Angeles Times editorial by making the case that a California constitutional convention isn't likely to work. You can read it here.
Californians should not mistake a widely shared dislike of our political situation with shared agreement on what constitutes the common good.
I have written about this already. Just click on my California tag below. I agree that a convention isn't going to work. We need to split the state.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Bigger Picture in California

Three pieces in the Los Angeles Times show why California is in trouble. Shane Goldmacher has an article on the latest tax increases.
While Californians are still feeling the sting of income and sales tax hikes signed into law earlier this year, now comes news that state tax authorities plan to take a little more from their pockets.

For only the second time in 30 years, the tax board is lowering the point where each tax bracket begins, bumping many people into a higher category. At the same time, officials are cutting back some deductions. Everyone will pay more, even people whose bracket or income doesn't change.
Great.

Meanwhile, columnist George Skelton enthuses about yet another group that claims to have the answers.
The bipartisan reform group California Forward has proposed a modest, reasonable and doable set of significant changes in how state and local governments operate.
We'll see.
There's no denying the problems: gridlock, perpetually late budgets, chronic deficits, IOUs, Sacramento raids on local coffers...
Don't forget high taxes and an environment hostile to business.
But these are some steps recommended unanimously by the California Forward's Leadership Council after 18 months of mulling:

Lower the Herculean hurdle for legislative passage of a state budget from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority. But retain the two-thirds requirement for tax increases.
Not sure how that would work. Sound like it would mean more borrowing, which necessitates more taxes.
For fiscal conservatives and anyone with common sense, require that unexpected spikes in tax revenue be spent only for one-time purposes, not to enhance programs in perpetuity.
This is toothless. The "one time" purpose every year could be "budget deficit", right?
Require the sponsor of any new spending proposal, whether in the Legislature or at the ballot box, to identify the funding source.
Good.
Budget for two years, rather than one, and regularly monitor the spending plan to watch for red ink.
Good.
Set clear goals for each program. If they're not met, change or chuck the program.
Good.
Prohibit the Legislature from raising taxes on a majority vote and calling them "fees."
Good.
Provide local governments with more control over their own fates by barring the state from raiding property taxes and other revenue.
Good.
Permit cities, counties and school districts to unite in some common endeavor, such as gang suppression, and pay for it with a tax increase passed by a simple majority of voters. Now it would require a two-thirds vote.
Keep the two-thirds requirement. Otherwise, we're screwed.
Relax term limits while reducing the overall time a person could spend in the Legislature.
Get rid of term limits.

Well, I’m not too impressed. I’ll say it again: 1) Split the state. 2) Make the legislature unicameral; reduce the number of legislators if possible. 3) Make the legislature a part-time "citizen" legislature.

Finally, there's this commentary from Ethan Rarick, director of the Robert T. Matsui Center for Politics and Public Service at UC Berkeley. He knocks Nevada's ads calling on California businesses to come to Nevada to escape taxation and regulations.
Relatively few businesses, once they're formed, pick up and move across state lines. Over the last several years, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California has done exhaustive research trying to measure precisely how many jobs California has lost because of such moves, while also measuring the offsetting number we have gained from businesses moving into the state. The conclusion? The impact is tiny. The researchers found that the average annual job loss was only .06% of California's total employment. Just to be clear, that's not 6%; it's six one-hundredths of 1%.
The fact is, businesses are moving out, and how many are moving here from other states?. Others are choosing to expand or start up elsewhere instead of California. That study doesn't deal with business that would have added jobs in California, but didn't because of the business climate in California. Also, individuals who are good workers and citizens and entrepreneurs - people who produce more revenue for the system than they take - are leaving and being replaced by welfare/subsidy-dependent people.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Gigantic Deficits

We should be ashamed for allowing it to get this bad. We need to stand up to Obama and the Democrats on this. We can't excuse Bush or Congressional Republicans, either. Deficit spending to fight wars and plagues and to respond to natural disasters is one thing, but we should not have allowed all of the federal spending that we have. We need to place fiscal responsibility ahead of promises of goodies.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

High Time We Legalized Pot?

California Governor Schwarzenegger has mentioned that the time may be right to debate marijuana legalization.  In California, marijuana use is legal as medicine, and recently the federal government has publicly backed off prosecutions in this area.

Let's get real.

Full disclosure:

1. I've never tried pot.  I didn't see the point.  Isn't thinking clearly hard enough these days without using mind-altering substances?  And if you really need to loosen up, what's wrong with wine?

2. I have known many people who have "tried" pot, and many of them have regularly smoked pot... for many years, and I've been able to observe their behavior over the years.

3. As demonstrated numerous times in this blog, I'm generally for personal liberty and limited government.

4. I want to keep reality in mind when dealing with issues.  I do not believe in overstating a case, as that destroys credibility.  Example: If you tell me that "reading" Playboy will lead to rape, then you shouldn't be taken seriously.  (I especially find it funny when someone says this and also recounts finding the magazine in her father's possession.  Was her father a rapist?)

With that in mind, let's take an honest look at the situation.

Legalizing pot will not solve court/prison overcrowding problems.  Yes, it will likely mean that some people will not be put into the court/prison system, because they run afoul of the law only because of pot.  But really, how many people fall into this category – having not committed any other crimes?  This would also be true if we legalized murder - though I do not equate selling pot and murder.  We could empty our prisons by striking most laws from the books.  We'll still have plenty of criminals to deal with even if pot is legal.  Whether or not pot should be legalized shouldn't hinge on whether or not it will be easier on this system.

Taxing pot will not solve our budget problems.  It might help, but spending is likely to increase as revenues increase, in a way that will make spending reductions (or, reductions in planned increases) politically difficult when revenues decline.  All of the other "sin" taxes, "Indian gaming", and lotteries have not prevented states such as California from facing deficits.

Taxing pot too much will perpetuate a black market.  This has been seen with tobacco.

Pot growers/distributors will not all suddenly become nonviolent, law-abiding, upstanding businesspeople upon pot legalization.  These people are growing pot in state and federal parkland, inside suburban homes dedicated entirely to growing pot, etc.  Many of these people are involved because it is a black market activity, rather than being outlaws solely because of their love of growing and selling pot.  They aren't used to dealing with numerous local, state, and federal regulations involved in running a business, employing people, and growing/selling a crop or drug.  Rather than a reduction in other crimes, we actually may see an increase as these people move on to other, more serious black market activities.

Legalizing pot will not solve our environmental problems by replacing petroleum.  It just isn't going to happen.  it may help a little, and if so, then good.

Sitting in a basement and smoking a joint isn't going to kill you, but regularly smoking pot will likely have negative effects in your life.  It may very well make you a Leftist blogger.  There are more productive and healthy things you could be doing with yourself.  Unless you find it to be the best medical treatment, you are probably better off not using it.

Many of the same problems society perceives and tries to address in regard to tobacco will also be present with marijuana.  They are both leaves.  Also, if people think this will create jobs in America but not elsewhere, they are fooling themselves.  Most likely, most commercial pot would be grown outside the U.S. and shipped in.

Prohibition does reduce consumption.  Alcohol drinking per capita in this country didn't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970s.  This, however, does not address whether or not pot distribution/use should be prohibited.

With all of this in mind, people like me are more likely to be indifferent of even supportive of pot legalization if we are able to exercise our rights to:

1. Hold people accountable for their behavior (like being able to sue them if they crash into us because they were driving while impaired).

2. Not pay for someone else's medical treatment.  You ruin your lungs smoking pot?  Don't expect me to pay.

3. Rent to or evict people from our property (including pot users).

4. Hire, fire, promote, or demote an employee (including  pot users).

5. Not to insure pot users.

In Conclusion...

If I don't have a right to use my property or run my business the way I want, or pay only for medical treatments as I choose, then you don’t have a right to use pot.  Support my liberty, and I will support yours.  Otherwise, it is no concern of mine if you want to blunt your thinking and abuse your lungs.  I don't buy the alarmism that all pot use leads to harder drugs and a bad life, nor do I buy the utopian promises of potheads who call for legalization.  One of the problems with illegal drug use is that it supports nasties like Mexican drug cartels and terrorists.  Whether or not legalization would change that doesn't negate the fact that casual drug use currently supports those nasties, and thus is immoral.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tax Money Is Not Enough For the Public Schools

In addition to regular tax money, lottery money, Indian gaming money, and bond money, the government schools still rely a lot on private money.

You know this, because you get hit up during the fundraisers all of the time.

Seema Mehta, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, reports.

South Orange County families are being urged to donate $400 per student to save the jobs of 266 teachers in the Capistrano Unified School District.

Parents at Long Beach's Longfellow Elementary are among countless statewide who are launching fundraising foundations.

Bay Area parents launched a campaign featuring children standing in trash cans; the theme is "Public Education Is Too Valuable to Waste."
Yes, more Leftist protest laughs.
A free public school education is guaranteed by the state Constitution to every California child.
Big mistake.  It isn’t really free.
But as districts grapple with proposed state funding cuts that could cause the layoffs of thousands of teachers and inflate class sizes, parents are being asked to dig deeper into their pocketbooks to help.

"Public education is free, but an excellent public education is not free at this point," said Janet Berry, president of the Davis Schools Foundation, which recently launched the Dollar-a-Day campaign, urging citizens of the city near Sacramento to donate $365 per child, grandchild or student acquaintance.
It never ends.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget would cut about $4.8 billion in education funding this year and next.
I believe they are talking about reduction in planned increases, not real cuts.
Public school district fundraising foundations were first formed after voter approval in 1978 of Proposition 13, which limited property tax increases and dramatically reduced school finances.
Ah yes – the obligatory mention of Prop 13, which kept retirees and widows from being taxed out of their lifelong homes.
Education officials acknowledge that these fundraising groups are more successful in wealthier areas, increasing the divide between the haves and the have-nots.
That will ALWAYS be a reality.  Otherwise, what is the point of busting your hump to make something of yourself?  If everything in life is going to be the same for you and your family regardless of how much money you make, why bother to earn more?
To raise awareness, a parent who runs an ad agency created the "Step Up" campaign.

Students, teachers and coaches have perched inside trash cans around Alameda, with signs reading "Our students / teachers / coaches are too valuable to throw away."
More entertaining protests.  Interestingly, the only time children are really dumped in the trash in relation to school is when school staff takes a girl to an abortion clinic.

1.As long as schools are funded by tax money, they will have to deal with less money when the economy slows down.  We have to cut back.  So should the schools.

2.Where is all of the money going?  Certainly not to the teacher or classroom.  It is going to administration, insurance, legal fees, etc.

3.How much money is spent educating illegal aliens and their children?

4.How much money is spent on social engineering instead of teaching the basics?

Separate school and state.  Let tuition, donations, sponsorships, and fundraising fund it all.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »