Two stories ran in yesterday's Los Angeles Times, conveniently after the elections. This one, from Mitchell Landsberg, is about how the teachers unions have blocked worthwhile education reform. This is how the story is titled:

Influence of Teachers Unions in Question
The groups have been slow to come to terms with the push for reform. Some see them as obstacles to change, and even union sympathizers agree that their voice in the education debate has been muted.

Would have been nice to get Jerry Brown or Barbara Boxer's reactions to that.

Teachers unions donate almost exclusively to Democratic politicians and have usually been able to count on their support. Obama has disappointed them — and the feeling appears to be mutual.

Join the club.

In 2008, the single largest contributor to state and federal campaigns was the National Education Assn., which spent $56 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The California Teachers Assn. has spent $211 million in the last decade trying to influence state campaigns, roughly double the amount of the next largest group, according to a report by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

$211,000,000. Do you know where your unions dues are?

In local school board campaigns, not only are unions usually the largest spender by far, they typically supply the largest volunteer force of campaign workers.

Yes... "volunteer".

The problems of unions extend into the culture at large. Consider Davis Guggenheim, the director of "Waiting for 'Superman,' " a documentary that paints unions as enemies of reform. He said that, as a Democrat, he believes in "the essence" of unions but that they can be on the right side — or the wrong side — of change. Even Oprah Winfrey has joined the fray, demanding to know, "Why can't you just fire bad teachers?"

A. J. Duffy, president of UTLA, said he believes that the challenges unions are facing are cyclical, not permanent, and that they are motivated by a pernicious corporate influence in education. "I think there's a fear that public education will be dismantled, rather than fixed."

That would be awesome!

The second article, from Marc Lifsher, is headlined this way:

Unemployment Payouts Push California deeper Into Debt
The state is borrowing $40 million a day from the federal government to provide assistance to jobless workers, but has resisted changing the formulas it uses to determine and fund those benefits.

Why do anything that might make things better?

California's fund for paying unemployment insurance is broke.

With one in every eight workers out of a job, the state is borrowing billions of dollars from the federal government to pay benefits at the rate of $40 million a day.

The debt, now at $8.6 billion, is expected to reach $10.3 billion for the year, two-thirds greater than last year. Worse, the deficit is projected to hit $13.4 billion by the end of next year and $16 billion in 2012, according to the California Employment Development Department, which runs the program.

Guess who is going to end up paying? All you folks in other states. I'm almost certain of it.

Interest on that debt will soon start piling up, forcing the state to come up with a $362-million payment to Washington by the end of next September.

Or the Democrats could simply bail out a blue state.

Continued borrowing, meanwhile, means that employers face an automatic hike in their federal unemployment insurance taxes, pushing up annual payroll costs $21 a year for each worker.

Those costs are expected to more than double over the next five years if California continues to borrow from the federal government.

It just gets better and better, doesn't it?

The state Legislature has turned away two attempts to raise payroll taxes to fix the deficit and ignored a similar proposal by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Now California's governor-elect, Jerry Brown, has to devise a way to minimize the tax burden on employers without drastically slashing benefits for the jobless - and get lawmakers on board.

Yeah, good luck with that.Hey, here's an idea. How about we make parents responsible for the education of their own children? Oh, and how about we encourage people to save their own money to pay for things like - when they are unemployed? And then, people could form voluntary alliances and associations to deal with these things, maybe form nonprofits or businesses or hire a company, and work with family and their religious congregations.

Responding to a piece that suggested that it may be bad for the economy if certain people actually pay their mortgage, Pieter Vandenberg of El Cajon wrote in to the Los Angeles Times:

Lenders are learning quickly not to lend, which hurts the economy.

Businesses with money will use the money in ways that makes them the most money. If lending becomes too risky or costly, they won't lend.

And since when did being underwater become a reason not to repay a loan? After making home loan payments as scheduled, I guarantee that when the last payment is made, the homeowner will not be underwater (unless asset values are negative, which is implausible). In fact, being underwater on a loan is probably the norm for consumers. Buy a car with a normal down payment, drive it for a few months and see what the car is worth; you'd probably be underwater. It's time for the borrowers to realize they did this to themselves. Nobody made them borrow the money, and it is time to pay up.

Couldn't have said it better myself. My wife and I did without buying a single family home until we could put enough down and secure a fixed-rate mortgage for a house that met our needs, a mortgage we could afford. 

The Orange County Register printed a letter from one of their regular letter writers, a Leftist who invited us limited-government types to leave California, given the election results. Mark Selleck of North Tustin wrote in response:

Yes, Mr. Pyle, I’ll give your suggestion to move serious thought [“Californians rallied,” Letters, Nov. 4]. Keep in mind that with me will go my small machine shop and the income tax it generates. Also gone will be sales tax I pay and the money the state takes from me for my boat, cars, interest on savings and other property taxes.

When those of us who work hard for a living are all gone what will you and your ilk do then? You see, the problem with every socialist endeavor is that, eventually, you will run out of other people’s money.

The only problem is, D.C. Democrats would then send bailout money to California to reward Democrat voters. This money would come from taxpayers other states, including the very people who left California to avoid that kind of redistribution.

This entry is especially for my fellow Californians and former Californians.

Is it time to leave California? Are the reasons you moved here, or stayed here once you were an adult, still in place? Family can move along with you, if that is what is keeping you here.

Let's take a brutally honest look at the facts.

1. Jerry Brown, who is anti-death penalty and in favor of neutering marriage,  is going to be Governor again – unless something happens to him, in which case we'll have San Francisco's Gavin "whetha ya like it or not!" Newsom.

2. The state legislature will continue to be run by Big Government union-owned Leftist Democrats who pretty much do anything that the gender confusion and homosexuality advocates tell them to do.

3. The state will continue to get an influx of poor, uneducated, unskilled illegal aliens who don't speak English and will vote for the people described above, even if they do it illegally. Their children born here will do so legally.

4. Barbara Boxer just picked up six more years as one of our two Senators.

5. California will continue to attract welfare cases, since it didn't do the "Contract With America"-era reform, and won't do reform any time soon.

6. Proposition 23 was strongly defeated, clearing the way for excessive, intrusive regulations, fewer consumer choices, more jobs lost, and higher costs for energy and elsewhere, in the name of stopping global warming.

7. Proposition 25 passed, allowing a simple majority to pass the state budget. This means Republicans in the state legislature are going to have absolutely no power. The Leftist Democrats will pass budgets that claim to meet the constitutional requirement of being balanced, but will be based on cooked books and wild assumptions. Then, when the inevitable deficit appears, they will insist that they must raise taxes or children will starve.

There are some bright spots. The votes on the other ballot measures have protected and expanded redistricting in a way that could mean more power for voters instead of party hacks. The latest attempt to protect local funding from state raids passed, and other tax & fee votes were good.

Steve Cooley may yet win his race against Kamala Harris for Attorney General. If Cooley wins, Prop 8 may get more defense. If Harris wins, however, say goodbye to the death penalty, even though we just built a shiny new facility.

Given all of the above:

1. Taxes are going to remain plentiful and high. We may get more and higher taxes.

2. There will be more regulations, fewer jobs, fewer choices, and a higher cost of living.

3. Public education is in lousy shape and is going to get worse.

4. Roads are not going to be expanded and maintained as they should, as the envirofascists try to force us to abandon personal automobiles.

More and more, a better quality of life can be found elsewhere.

Is it time for tax-paying, law-abiding people, especially parents, to leave California?

I'm ashamed of my state, California, but very happy to see that the House has gone GOP, and the TEA Party impact there and elsewhere. A negative side effect, however, is the increasing of President Obama's chances of being re-elected in 2012. This depends on him being as smart at Bill Clinton, who was re-elected on 1996 in no small part to the positive results of the GOP Congress.

If Obama plays his cards right, he can ride the wave of the House and the natural economic recovery due to happen.

To prevent an Obama re-election in 2012, the GOP must not only run a worthy candidate, but it has to explain for the next two years exactly what the Democrats in the Senate are doing and what Obama is doing, and how things would be done differently if the GOP had a majority in the Senate and had the Presidency.

It is not surprising that the Los Angeles Times is against Proposition 23, which would put a hold on the oppressive and unnecessary provisions of AB 32 until the California economy is healthy.

In 2006, taking a brief hiatus from the usual Sacramento gridlock, the Legislature passed and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 32, a pioneering law designed to reduce California's greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.

They're talking about CO2, which all of us exhale.

This year, a proposition that aims to kill the law was put on the Nov. 2 ballot by two Texas oil companies with a lot at stake.

Boo! Hiss! Oil companies can never be right about anything! And there no way those "Texas" oil companies employ Californians, right? Right?

The cynical, misleading argument the companies are using to make their case is that AB 32 will deter job growth at a critical moment in the state's economic recovery.

It is the truth.

Proposition 23 would suspend AB 32 until the state's unemployment rate falls to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. Backers insist that this wouldn't negate the law because the rate is achievable - joblessness hit that mark just four years ago. Yet a global recession, which had nothing to do with California's environmental standards, caused statewide unemployment to skyrocket to 12.4%, and it will take many years to recover from such a severe economic blow. Because meeting AB 32's 2020 deadline requires immediate action, delaying implementation by even a year could render its goal impossible.

So what if it does?

Although Proposition 23's supporters rightly point out that California, by itself, can't have much of an impact on global warming no matter how sharply it cuts its carbon emissions, AB 32 will have benefits beyond the fight against climate change. Cleaner energy will also bring cleaner air, reducing public health costs and improving quality of life.

They're delusional.

"Whittier5" at 7:46 AM September 28, 2010:

California can either Lead the World or Follow Texas.

Texas has been adding jobs, and I'm not talking about government jobs that require tax money to support. I'd like to follow Texas, please, and maybe surpass Texas.

Recommendations:

Proposition 20 - VOTE YES
Proposition 21 - VOTE NO
Proposition 22 - VOTE YES
Proposition 23 - VOTE YES
Proposition 24 - VOTE NO
Proposition 25 - VOTE NO
Proposition 26 - VOTE YES
Proposition 27 - VOTE NO

The MSM has tried to marginalize the TEA Party, and the Leftist hordes buy into that theme. Here's an article in the Los Angeles Times by Victoria Kim, covering a TEA Party event.

The crowd was mostly white and older, many wearing straw hats for some reprieve from the sun.

Why is it the these people are so fixated on skin color?

Also in the audience was actress Alana Stewart, who said there were many "closeted conservatives" in Hollywood who were afraid to speak out for fear of repercussions in the industry.

Considering what capitalism has done for Hollywood, it is laughable that they disrespect TEA Party people.

"L.A.Voter" at 12:06 AM September 27, 2010:

As a card-carrying middle-aged white person I have to wonder if any of these people realize how much they're being propelled by their own racism.

Saying they are racist doesn't make it true.

They say their objections to President Obama are policy-based, but they never seem to know the actual truth about his policies.

How many TEA Party people have you talked with?

"DABARP" at 9:01 AM September 27, 2010:

These Tea Party Meets are undercover KKK Meetings, just with a different title. Rich people are trying to do anything to make sure their wealth is safe even if it cost them millions of lives.

Bearing false witness is so much fun, isn't it?

Columnist Steve Lopez wrote about the same event.

Someone handed me a flier for Chelene Nightingale, a candidate for governor of California. Ever hear of her? I hadn't, but she's an immigration hard-liner, according to the literature, and lest you doubt it, there's a photo of her with a big smile and an even bigger gun.

People can hand out any literature they want in public places. It doesn't mean they represent TEA Party principles.

The level of discourse, in other words, was not always clever or scholarly.

Nor is the Los Angeles Times. So what?

Be sure to vote, and send a message to the MSM and the Lefitsts.

There were some good comments written after a commentary in the Los Angeles Times by Jacob S. Hacker, professor of political science at Yale, and Paul Pierson, professor of political science at UC Berkeley, arguing to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest.

"Marphurius Parione" at 6:23 AM September 23, 2010:

What I like about this absurd editorial is that it automatically asserts  two radical communist principles, as if they were values that we all commonly share: (1)  That someone is obligated to pay the government more than anyone else, because they can earn more than anyone else,  and, (2)  That when government fails to extract more from someone that is capable of producing more, then it is 'subsidizing' them.

"genuinefor89" at 6:57 AM September 23, 2010:

If you gave everybody in America $1 million dollars today and we started from scratch, in 20 years the people that are rich now will be rich again and the people that are poor now will be poor again.

Yes, because the rich do what the rich do, and the poor do what the poor do. Plenty of people who have inherited their money or have gotten huge payoffs (like Mike Tyson) for some sporting or entertainment ability or even a lawsuit or lottery have spent it all and ended up bankrupt. On the other hand, people from very modest means have grown rich through their risks, hard work, innovation, and investment.

"TimBowman" at 11:49 AM September 23, 2010 didn’t disappoint:

I still fail to see how taxing people at a higher percentage based on what they earn is democratic, albeit is certainly Democratic.  Nonetheless, to satisfy your sense of moral outrage, I propose a tax increase on college professors who just can't get it that capital gains stimulate the economy far more than taxes will ever do.

It is good to see that there are some people out there who get it.

Voting tomorrow for TEA Party candidates will send a message about taxes and spending.

Judd Silver of Irvine hit the nail on the head over a month ago in a letter to the Los Angeles Times, writing in response to a wealthier person who doesn’t think the rich are taxed enough.

Allow me to remind the writer that if he feels so tormented that he isn't paying enough taxes, there is no law preventing him from writing checks to the U.S. or state treasury over and above what he actually owes.

Exactly. Leftists talks as though they are prevented from doing all these things they want the federal government to do. In most cases, they are free to do such things on their own. They are free to pay higher taxes. They are free cut their own carbon footprint. They are free to employ people and pay them higher than the going rate. But they want to use federal government power to force other people to do it, too.

Others expressed the same thing as Silver, such as Richard B. Williams of Woodland Hills.

To every multimillionaire who got rich in front of a keyboard or camera, I invite you to start paying your taxes at the Clinton levels to show us how sincere you are.

Yes. Put your money where your mouth is. If you don't like the TEA Party message that we are taxed enough already, then go ahead and set a good example by paying more of your own money.

Bob Elliott of Anaheim Hills explains why Jerry Brown should be defeated:

We have to pay taxes to fund public schools and other public services. The employees in these public jobs are unionized and a portion of their pay (our money) goes to powerful unions. The unions give billions of dollars (of our money) to the Democrat Party and have their employees “donate” thousands of man hours to help campaign and get the vote out for Democrats (only). In return, the Democrats allow the union employees to greatly out earn the private sector with pay, benefit, and retirement packages that are unsustainable and are breaking the back of most every state and local government in the country.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. That is where much of our problem originates, in large part thanks to Jerry Brown's time as Governor. Employees should be free to not join a union. Absent that option, they should be free to not pay for the union's political activities and still be able to vote on their internal union leadership. Above all, we should have separation of state and school for many reasons, including that taxpayers should be force to pay for the perpetuation of political ideologies with which they disagree.

The man who started this ball rolling in California was former Gov. Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown who first allowed the collective bargaining of teachers and other public employees.

Don't put Jerry Brown back in charge!

Please, please, please... if you are in California and you don't vote on anything else, please vote for Carly.

Apologies to my regular readers - I know I have slowed down in the updates around here as the election approaches. Please click around some of the tabs and links in the right to read things you may have missed. I hope to pick up the pace again soon.

In case I don't get a chance to remind you again... GET OUT AND VOTE!!!

Michael Coogan, through CNN's website, reminds hit & run Bible mockers of their talking points, though he is no a "hit and run" guy himself, being a lecturer on Hebrew Bible-Old Testament at Harvard Divinity School, professor of religious studies at Stonehill College, and director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum.

As the Bible itself makes clear, its authors were human beings, many of whom are named: David, Isaiah, Luke, and Paul.

Yes, but the Bible (which is, indeed, a collection of various writings) also claims to be the Word of God, divinely inspired, and authoritative. Now, either that claim is false or it is true. If it is true, then that is a big deal. Whenever guys like this deny that the Bible is ultimately divine rather than human in origin, it is always to try to repel something like the notion that the Bible teaches that sex is for marriage, or that salvation is through Jesus Christ alone. It is never to deny the "love your neighbor" or "care for the poor" stuff. Funny how that is.

So it's not surprising that inconsistencies are frequent in the Bible, both trivial and profound.

If you are willing to discuss it, name one actual profound inconsistency in the Bible that, when the passages are taken in their contexts and properly considered, are indeed actually inconsistent.

Although Jews and Christians, individually and collectively, have for the last 2,000 years accepted the Bible as authoritative in principle, in practice many of its values have been rejected.

If you are willing to discuss it, name one. (Not that you'd submit to Biblical authority even if all such objections were answered.)

On issues such as slavery, no one today would maintain that slavery is acceptable, even though, according to the Bible, it was a divinely sanctioned institution.

Working one's debts off was divinely sanctioned as were how to handle those defeated in a just war, but never slavery in the sense of enslaving innocent people against their will, especially on the basis of skin color. The Bible does not promote every behavior that it records.

In the debates about slavery in the 19th century those opposed to its abolition cited the Bible in support of their position, but despite such biblical warrant, their views were renounced.

That's because they were successfully countered by other Bible-believers.

According to biblical law, a father could sell his daughter as a slave, and the last of the Ten Commandments lists as off-limits a neighbor's possessions -- his house, wife, slaves, and livestock. But the majority of modern Jews and Christians no longer accept the biblical view of women as men's property and hence subordinate to them, as they have also abandoned the biblical practice of polygamy.

This would be a good place to start in response to this. The Bible never promoted polygamy, and does promote monogamy (see Paul's writings on the requirement for a bishop). And yes, it is still wrong to covet anything that belongs to someone else. If you don't think spouses still belong to each other today, go ask anyone who is paying alimony.

Now we're going to get to the real reason for this attack on the Bible…

In current debates about family values, most of which have to do with sex, opponents of abortion and advocates of a woman's right to choose both cite the Bible in support of their conflicting views, even though the Bible in fact says nothing specifically about the issue.

The Bible depicts the unborn as human beings, human persons, and depicts the unjust killing of human beings as murder. You do the math.

And with regard to same-sex marriage, although the few biblical writers who mention same-sex relationships, especially between men, were unequivocally opposed to them, many contemporary believers would argue that, as with slavery and the status of women, it is time to recognize that the values of the biblical writers are no longer necessarily our own.

Jesus and the writers of the New Testament promoted the equality of individuals, freedom from bondage, and improved the status of women. Nowhere do they record a call to change the prevailing understanding and longstanding Biblical prohibition against sex and sex-like behavior outside of marriage, nor the cultural and Biblical rule that marriage unites a bride and a groom. Jesus challenged the culture and certain traditions and practices, yet did not challenge the Biblical teaching that sex is for marriage and that marriage unites the sexes.

Opponents of same-sex marriage cite Leviticus, which says that when a man sleeps with a man as with a woman it is an abomination.

It isn't just Leviticus. There are New Testament passages, too, and Jesus affirms marriage as the uniting of a bride and a groom.

They're right: It does say that. But it later calls for the death penalty for such activity, which only the most rabid opponents would insist on. The Bible also calls eating pork and a woman wearing a man's clothes abominations, yet many would no longer enforce such prohibitions.

Again, see here.

Individual biblical texts should not be appealed to selectively: Such cherry-picking is all too easy because of the nature of the Bible as a multi-authored book.

Actually, it is more because different books of the Bible are written to different audiences.

He then goes on to write about the Constitution to make the point...

What are those underlying values? I would argue that they are rooted in love of neighbor, which Jewish and Christian commentators over the ages have identified as the essential and enduring message of the Bible.

First and foremost, we are to love God with everything that we have. Obedience to God is part of that. Loving others is part of obedience to God, and we will love each others in the best way possible if we have the right relationship with God.

So, I suggest, the essence of the Bible -- its ultimate authority -- is not in its individual pronouncements, but in its underlying message: equal, even loving, treatment of all persons, regardless of their age, gender, socio-economic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Great. Yes, it is a good thing to love. But love doesn't mean that we pretend that sin isn't sin, or that we abandon other Biblical values, morals, and boundaries. Love doesn't mean telling someone that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing because that is what they want to hear. Love doesn't mean allowing my own voice to be silenced so that others can do wrong or decide things for me.

Throughout the Bible, from the first book through the last, for all peoples and places and times, marriage is presented as something that unites a bride and a groom. This is in contrast to certain commandments given to a specific people for a specific time and place. How do we know the difference? Though Bible study. Actually reading the Bible and considering the audience of the various books, the literary genres being used, and so on.

Although one need not invoke the Bible or disapproval of homosexual behavior to defend marriage (or human life), the Bible does command believers to stand up for Biblical morality. (Be sure to vote!)

Based on the campaign messages by progressive Democrats, I just might be one of them.

I am strongly in favor of the separation of church and state[1].

I am for gay marriage[2] and LGBT rights[3].

I am against bullying[4].

I support women's rights, including the right to choose[3], and equal pay[5].

I am in favor of equal opportunity[5].

I want more jobs in America[6].

I support[7] education[8].

I support[7] working families[9].

I support[7] affordable housing[10].

I support[7] taking care of children, the elderly, the sick, and the disabled[11].

I am in favor of making the rich pay their fair share[12].

I am for children’s rights[11].

I am for reparations for African-Americans[13].

I support immigrant rights[14].

I like diversity[15].

I am for protecting the environment[16].



Notes:

[1] I do not want the federal government adopting as a national church one specific Christian denomination, nor do I want any level of government to interfere in church matters unless a crime has been committed.

[2] I want all marriages to be gay and otherwise happy, healthy, and lasting.

[3] I am for the rights of LGBT people and women, regardless of their political views or where they live to:

Choose what to do with their own property.

Choose whom to hire, promote, and fire as business owners or residents.

Choose what to will offer as compensation, and, as employees, choose whether or not to accept.

Choose whether or not to join a union.

Choose whether or not to pay for health insurance.

Choose whether or not they will save for the future.

Choose which school, if any, their child will attend (if accepted), and which school(s), if any, they will financially support.

Choose whether or not they will own or carry a handgun, unless they’ve shown they can’t be trusted with a gun.

Choose whether or not they will support a business.

Choose whether or not to be charitable, and being able to choose which charitable efforts they will support.

Choose, even if they are elected officials, whether or not to publicly express their religion.

Choose to put the rights of women or LGBT people over Leftist unity, Democrat election victories, socialism, or “peace” with terrorists.

Not be butchered in the womb or on the table or left in a closet to die.

To have a mother and a father and be raised by them instead of being treated like wards of the state.

Choose mothering over career, or career instead of mothering, or a career that allows her to actively mother her own children, or a husband that will take care of the kids and home while she works.

Manage the fruits of her own professional labor via lower taxes, including her freedom to accumulate and pay off her own debts; budget, save, and invest; pay for her own meals, drinks, entertainment, etc.

Choose whether or not to have sex, and whether it will be with a loving, devoted, spouse who is characteristically or financially able to raise a family or with some stranger - and I believe that, being adults, these people can handle the consequences without my help.

Pay support to an ex-spouse and child support.

Be treated the same as anyone would be treated in cases of domestic violence and other crimes, including statutory rape.

Have commitment ceremonies, exchange rings, have a minister officiate, live together, refer to each other(s) with spousal designations, change names, have receptions and vacations, etc.

[4] I think coercion, assault, vandalism, and harassment should be prosecuted and otherwise punished regardless of the identity of the victim, and that the force of government should not be used to prevent people from enjoying their liberty as they see fit.

[5] I am for equal pay for equal negotiation, and the opportunity to apply for jobs or create a job.

[6] I want people to retain as much of their earnings and property rights as possible and for our markets to be as free as possible, and this will mean more jobs in America.

[7] With my taxes, whether I like it or not. And I don't even get thank-you cards.

[8] I want everyone to be able to choose their school, and I am strongly in favor of people being taught such things as the original meaning and intents of the Constitution, how to use a gun, unanswered questions in evolutionary models, the difference between science and philosophy, the realities of abortion, and the contents and history of the most influential collection of literature in Western civilization – The Bible.

[9] I want people to work rather being on taxpayer assistance, and if a child wants to work for money, they should be allowed to work – and not just in the entertainment industry. There's no reason why a 13-year-old should be prevented from working after school or on the weekends for whatever compensation is negotiated.

[10] It is silly to have housing go vacant, which is what housing does if it isn't affordable. All housing that sells or rents without taxpayer money is affordable. Allowing development increases supply, which keeps prices down. Don't confuse subsidized housing with affordable housing.

[11] I'm for private charity, which along with capitalism, takes care of these people; I'm against killing children and old people. I'm for the rights of children to a mother and father.

[12] The rich are paying way too much of the overall tax burden, and they shouldn't have to pay a higher percentage of their income than anyone else to income taxes, because that’s not fair.

[13] …and anyone else who is the victim of a crime; the victims of crimes or their immediate heirs should get restitution from the actual perpetrator.

[14] I support the rights of immigrants to be honored rather than insulted and disrespected, as they are when illegal aliens are rewarded for breaking the law.

[15] It is wonderful to have diversity in education, in media, in state laws, in having both a man and woman in a legal marriage, all of the different kinds of lightbulbs and guns and SUVs and televisions and Bibles, etc.

[16] …from imminent domain abuse and government mismanagement. The best to protect the environment is through private property rights.

With each passing day, I think more about moving out of California, the state of my birth, where I have lived my entire life, and where I had hoped to live my entire life. Even when we pass a good ballot initiative, it gets subverted by the legislature or judges. And this time, it looks like a good ballot initiative is going to be defeated while a bad one gets passed. Evan Halper reports in the Los Angeles Times about a poll conducted by the paper with USC.

Despite the struggling economy, most California voters oppose suspending the state's landmark global warming law, which would place strict new environmental regulations on business, a new Los Angeles Times/ USC poll shows.

Proposition 23, which would put the new emissions standards on hold, is trailing 48% to 32% among likely voters, according to the survey.

Without Prop 23, gasoline is probably going to go up to about $9 a gallon and a million jobs are going to be lost in a state that already has unemployment over 12%, not counting those who have given up or are underemployed. Prop 23 would suspend things like certain regulations on CO2 (which we naturally exhale), until employment falls below 5.5% for a year. Prop 23 is needed because of California's draconian nanny-state AB 32.

The poll found that 58% of likely voters support Proposition 25, which would replace the constitutional requirement that the state budget be approved by two-thirds of the Legislature with a simple majority vote requirement. Such a change would allow Democrats to pass a budget without any GOP votes under the current makeup of the Legislature.

Since Proposition 13 was passed, the tax-addicts have been looking for ways to subvert it, and this will help to give them their fix. California already has too many taxes and too high taxes, but things are going to get worse if Prop 25 passes.

It is important to note that Prop 13 is what kept Jerry Brown from doing even more damage as Governor, so if Prop 25 passes and Brown is elected Governor, it will be a double whammy.

Tobias Martinez of Riverside, a 45-year-old truck driver, is among the voters troubled by oil company involvement in [Prop 23]. "When you see that they are funding it, it begins to look like this is something just to benefit them," said Martinez, who is registered "decline to state." "They want to be able to produce more pollutants.... It doesn't make sense that stopping the improvement of air quality would create jobs."

It isn’t about air quality. It is about limiting things like CO2, which is something we all exhale naturally, in a vain attempt by a single state to fight "global warming". The regulations will restrict businesses in such a way that they will have to either spend more money on something other than providing a product or service, close down, or move out of state.

The proposal to change the legislative vote threshold needed to pass a budget, meanwhile, would dramatically alter the political dynamic in Sacramento. Proposition 25 is pitched by supporters as a means to end Sacramento's notorious budget gridlock. In their advertisements, supporters also have stressed that the measure would dock lawmakers' pay if a budget was not passed on time.

Voters are fools to fall for that meager carrot.

The measure would leave in place a two-thirds vote requirement for broad tax hikes.

Right. We’ll see how that actually works out.

Edgar Duran of Fontana is tired of the status quo. "Those guys can never agree on anything in Sacramento," said the 49-year-old, who is unemployed and registered "decline to state." "I am tired of watching them play games and waiting to see who makes the first move. Getting to two-thirds never happens."

It happens EVERY YEAR! We get a budget EVERY YEAR. We don't need to change the 2/3rds requirement. What we need to do is have two-year budgets and switch to a part-time legislature.

Recommendations:

Proposition 20 - VOTE YES
Proposition 21 - VOTE NO
Proposition 22 - VOTE YES
Proposition 23 - VOTE YES
Proposition 24 - VOTE NO
Proposition 25 - VOTE NO
Proposition 26 - VOTE YES
Proposition 27 - VOTE NO