The JimP's rant-hole

Everyone have a Safe and Happy Independence Day!!!

2011-07-04T16:05:00.000-07:00

Happy Independence Day, everyone. Its not just the Fourth. That happens every month. Independence Day happens every year, and should be recognized for the individually most important Federal Holiday our great nation has chosen to honor.

I finally posted the National Ensign on my home on Friday. I should have done it on Flag Day, but I didn't get home from work that night until almost 7pm, and by then it was too late. Anyway, today, above all other days, it is our duty to recognize the cost of Freedom, and pay homage to the men and women, service members, emergency personnel and civil servants, who have given everything or have pledged to sacrifice all they have in order to protect the Freedom we all possess.

The Constitution of the United States - Article I

2011-06-22T18:11:00.000-07:00

My study of the Constitution begins here:
Article I
Section 2, Clause 5:
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment
Once Senators begin spouting off about how Congress should start Impeachment Hearings the Senators involved should be required to re-read this Section and Clause.

Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
This is the reason why Senators, even if under the belief that someone has conducted themselves in a manner that would warrant Impeachment, should keep their opinions on the matter to themselves. The conflict of interest created by Senators pre-judging they would ultimately be responsible for presiding over would be abundantly apparent. It would also present the appearance of the "judging body" in the event of Impeachment Hearings being biased against the accused by virtue of the fact that a member of the body called for the Hearings, thereby affirming their belief in the accused person's guilt.

Section 8, Clause 3 (The Commerce Clause):
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
This is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented of the Clauses in the Constitution. Specifically, the middle statement, wherein is indicated that Congress has the power to regulate Commerce "among the several States". This is a simple statement. Commerce among the States is under the purview of Congress. Simply put, this means that Commerce between the States shall be regulated as Congress sees fit. This Clause does not indicate anything other than Commerce among the States, which means Commerce that is not carried out by Citizens and Non-Governmental organizations is exempt from this oversight by Congress. Simply put, if the States wish to conduct Commerce related activity the activity is subject to Congressional approval, and conversely, if a private Citizen, Business or Non-Governmental Organization wishes to conduct Commerce related activity they are free to do so without hindrance from Congressional oversight.

Section 10, Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
Unless I read this Clause incorrectly, this Clause indicates that all net proceeds collected by States who are able to gain Consent of the Congress to levy taxes on Imports and Exports shall then transfer said proceeds to the US Treasury for their specific Use. This basically means that the gasoline, liquor and tobacco taxes, and other such taxes that vary from State to State are actually the property of the US Treasure, not the State they are collected in. I wonder what would happen if the Treasury were to re-direct the California $0.185/gal gasoline tax from California Department of Transportation projects to something else entirely?

Article II, tomorrow...

I want to get back into this!

2011-06-22T16:26:00.000-07:00

I find that when I write I'm happier. Strange, that, considering that when I write I am often complaining about something. I think I'm happier because when I write it lets me vent my spleen about the things that really light my hair on fire. That could be it. Anyway, I'm going to try to get back into it, and I have planned a study of the Constitution of the United States as a starting point. I'm going to go through, Amendment by Amendment, in hopes of gaining a deeper understanding of what being an American truly means.

It should be fun! Or boring... Depending on your perspective. We shall see.

Banned for a Reason

2010-03-28T19:00:00.000-07:00

An article I unfortunately cannot direct-link to (pay-wall) in today's SF Chronicle has a strange bent to it, especially considering the source. The bent is "neutral", which is entirely unexpected. Here's the deal...

Seattle, in 1993, passed a public ballot initiative that banned sitting or lying on public sidewalks in certain areas of the city. The initiative's goal was to prevent people from loitering around the areas that would otherwise be usable as places of business. This was passed in reaction to a major department store chain closing its location in Downtown Seattle. The closure resulted in a domino cascade of storefront closures in the area which then resulted in an increase in vagrancy, loitering, and panhandling. The area became a preferred location for the homeless because there was still traffic from tourists passing through the area. Tourists are a source of income for panhandlers, homeless or otherwise, and everyone knows in business the first rule for success is LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!

The Sit/Lie Ban allowed police officers to issue "Move Along" warnings to people who were in violation, followed by a $50 citation. Ironically, the majority of offenders who would warrant a citation would never have been able to pay it, but the intent wasn't to generate a revenue stream for the city; advocates of the law wanted the blight that had become the area around where Fredrick & Nelson used to be in 1992 to become a center for commerce again. Dissenters referred to the law as "...Fascism on Seattle's streets.", indicating that homeless have nowhere else to go.

Both of these views in the same article in the SF Chronicle wasn't expected, and was actually pretty refreshing. There's more, though. Gavin Newsom, SF's mayor, wants to copy the law, but make the provisioning city wide. It would effectively limit stationary panhandlers, homeless, or anyone from sitting or lying on the sidewalks in the city between the hours of 7am and 11pm, a wider hour range than the Seattle law. Police Officers would be empowered to issue "Move Along" warnings followed by $50 citations to those who fail to comply.

Both the Seattle law and the SF proposal are molded around the goal of limiting or eliminating vagrancy interfering with or deterring tourism. Tourism is the lifeblood of both these cities, and vagrancy chases tourists out of the tourist traps, thus robbing the businesses and the cities of revenue. Both cities are very liberal, opting to spend taxpayer money to support vagrants with programs aimed at feeding, clothing and housing the impoverished. I'm of a mind that these programs enable the same types of behavior that cause poverty; drug use, laziness, reliable income via aggressive panhandling and no incentive to seeking legitimate work due to an oppressive tax structure (which deters business and job growth) and high housing costs. The ironic part of all of this is that homeless people don't pay taxes, but tourists pay sales and municipal taxes to local governments, which in turn bolster the local governments revenue streams, which are then used to support the poor. The dissenting view is that laws preventing vagrancy from taking place everywhere is an affront to the poor; an attack to their civil liberties.

Attacking a homeless person's civil liberties would be more along the lines of arresting a poor person for holding a sign in public. Warning a homeless person that it is inappropriate for them to lie on the sidewalk, or in an abandoned storefront during city business hours isn't impinging on their civil liberties... Its more like protecting a revenue stream by protecting one's storefront and environs. If it wasn't a homeless person, but a drunk man lying on the sidewalk vomiting on the steps of Mary-Lou's Scrapbook Emporium the police would be called upon to resolve the situation, and decried vociferously if they failed to do so. The argument that homeless oftentimes have nowhere to go is systemic, and has solutions that can be implemented alongside policy that enforces common public courtesies.

Allowing the image of a city to be subverted by the idea that the city is complacent in protecting its primary industry harms everyone: tourists, locals, businesses and the poor. Comparing the local government's responsibility to develop and enforce laws that protect the public at large, as opposed to protecting a minority (homeless), to the wholesale oppression of said minority is naive and irresponsible. Not only can SF protect its primary industry, but the city can also use this protection as leverage to be able to then provide services with the "bought revenue" this protection would create. Since the detractors to this sort of law are also in favor of spending public funds to provide services to those who do not provide said funds, you'd figure finding ways to protect the revenue streams that provide those funds would be part and parcel to any solution... Often times you'll find a less than holistic view to social issues from the Left. The core issue isn't making sure their solutions are sustainable, but making sure the minority is protected, regardless of their participation in the protection.

A Liberal Thinktank thinks a Conservative Idea will Work?

2010-03-03T19:09:00.000-08:00

In this article posted at Fox News the Conservative ideas regarding TORT Reform as it applies to the health-care industry are getting a thorough going over by both sides. I'm certain the Liberals are trying to gain ground they have already lost and would otherwise lose due to their blithe disregard for the viewpoint of their constituents should they push the shambles of a health-care reform they have now through Congress, but if they're willing to fall on their sword by actually implementing TORT Reform nation-wide based on the example set by Texas it would be a better start than any of the other "reforms" in the bills in the House and Senate as they stand today. TORT Reform on its own restored the trust and good faith in the state of Texas' ability to provide quality health care to its residents. That alone would be worthwhile, but the benefits didn't stop there... Texas is now a sought out work location for the majority of graduating doctors due to TORT Reform, higher pay, higher patient coverage levels and a better work environment in general.

What do you want to bet California will try to find a way to go the opposite direction if Congress follows Texas' lead?

You Got That Right!

2010-02-09T09:44:00.000-08:00

I received this from my father this morning. Think about what's being said by the Australian President, and then thing about what we as a country have done to ourselves.

America, Canada , all Europe ...... Needs a President like this....
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd - Australia

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques..
Quote:

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, Learn the Language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this , American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths..

We need more Leaders, not more Politicians

2010-02-06T15:49:00.000-08:00

The "R-Word". How droll. I'm very interested in the R-Words (Ronald Reagan) becoming a household term again. One of the biggest problems with this country right now is that those who believe in the principles set in place by the Founders and reinforced at a time when it was most needed (by President Reagan) have been forgotten by those who govern. A new breed of leader (not Politician) is needed, and this dire need is felt most by those who have lost friends and family overseas without having a real goal for those fighting for Freedom everywhere. This desperate need is felt by those who have lost their livelihood due to over regulation and poor judgment by those who are in a position where both these mistakes can cripple the masses.

The US Government is not our keeper. It never was. The US Government's responsibilities end at the protection of our Freedom and our lives from enemies of Freedom.

Liberalism belief, having a fervor not unlike that inspired by religion, out of the unswerving pursuit of the ultimate goal of "Utopia" forgets or ignores the guidance of our nation's Founders. They want to increase the burden of government by forcing services upon you. They want to punish those who do not NEED the services they want to force on everyone. Services are a form of control when they are not earned. That's why when you go out to get fast food, or a haircut, or lumber to build a good-neighbor fence you have the choice of Mc Donald's vs. Jack-in-the-Box, or Supercuts vs. Joe the Barber, or TrueValue vs. The Home Depot. If one doesn't give you the service you want you take your Dollar elsewhere. You've earned that choice by earning your Dollar. The government under Liberalism doesn't want you to have that choice because they don't want you to take your Dollar anywhere. As far as they are concerned, it isn't your Dollar in the first place, and in their reality you wouldn't have any Dollars to make those choices for yourself anyway. If you were to NEED something the government would provide, and you'd be either happy with the service, or at least not NEED anymore. Of course, NEED would be determined by someone who, in the beginning, more often than not won't know what your NEEDS are. Over time this faceless "someone" will have been so removed from your idea of NEED that you'll be lucky to be given Government Cheese when you're actually lactose intolerant.

The cornerstone destroying problem with Liberalism is that human nature inherently houses a overarching need to achieve more. Liberalism is the restriction or removal of this desire. How else would the government's providing of services better left to the competition of a free market be acceptable? Once a person's ambition is crushed and replaced with poorly met (and often unmet) NEEDS the Liberal government has you, and you now have your "Utopia", where a ruling class provides what you NEED without an ounce more able to be obtained. After all, you don't NEED it, do you? What you WANT is irrelevant.

...if you want it or Not!

2010-02-04T14:19:00.000-08:00

If the government is so overly concerned about health care costs maybe they should remove restrictions to health insurance competition. There are only 8 or 10 reputable companies in California, for instance, that meet the standards for California's health insurance minimums, and two of them are State subsidised (Blue Cross and Blue Shield). There are 35 Million documented Californians. That competition pool is pretty slim, for that size of a customer base, and doesn't offer much in the way of incentive for the companies to cut costs. If employers are to be encouraged to provide health insurance for their employees it would make better economic sense to allow for competition to drive costs down. Fewer and fewer companies are willing to do business in California because of the high tax cost of doing business, further exaserbating the chances of competition.

TORT reform will also drive down costs, as it has in Texas. Exhorberant judgements in litigation against doctors and hospitals in malpractice suits drives a doctor's cost of doing business up through high malpractice insurance premiums, and that cost is always passed on to the consumer.

Don't like that I talk about healthcare in the terms of it being a business? That is one of the biggest problems with the thought process of Americans these days... It IS business. If you can't afford the cost of participating in the economy its either because you choose not to be productive, or you have a disability that prevents your participation. If you're not disabled then your lack of access is your fault, as access is NOT a right, but a privilage.

Conversely, it would be the same as saying that every American has the right to own a car, regardless of their ability to pay for one. That is Communism, play and simple, and it is wrong, unsustainable, and ultimately leads to the fall of every nation that attempts it.

I was at : 621-629 E a St, Hayward, CA 94541,

I have a Problem... A Big Problem

2010-02-04T14:16:00.000-08:00

What happens when the only realistic measure of shelter from Governmental wholesale destruction of the US economy is to move out of the TSP's market based funds and into their no risk Government securities? If things keep going as they are the Government securities I can invest in will be worthless as well. What is one to do?

Tax the Job Producers, and then give Them a Carrot

2010-02-01T07:54:00.000-08:00

Thats right, a capital "Them". The rhetoric from the Left typically labels rich Americans and businesses as "Them", so I'll just carry it forward for "Them". The President and his buddies in Congress plan on letting Tax Breaks expire for "Them" in order to blunt the blow to our deficit the $3.8B budget the President plans to sign. The expectation, he says, is that the richest of Americans can afford the taxes (upwards of $0.60 on every dollar they make), so they should pay "Their fair share".

The only problem I see is that these "Them" the Left talks so condescendingly about employ those who the Left would pass those increased taxes on to as entitlements, all the while demonizing them because they're rich. Well, in order to protect their evil profits "They" will shed labor, inventory, production, and possibly their businesses if the taxes prove too much for them to remain in business. That will sort of cut into the taxes "They" are supposed to pay, thus cutting into tax revenue, increasing unemployment, the deficit and damaging the economy further.

You'll never get the Left to realize this, though. Dynamic economic modeling; taking into account the fact that economics has a human component, prone to the fight or flight instinct, and the ambitions that make up the core of human nature, seems to be foreign to the Left.

LOWER TAXES IMPROVES BUSINESS, THUS IMPROVING TAX REVENUE! GET IT? NO? Then find a new job, because you suck at this one!

Credit vs. Break... Neither does the Job...

2010-01-29T07:38:00.000-08:00

One of the problems with the President's proposed Tax Credits, or Tax Breaks is they don't do anything for small businesses that have, until now, suffered due to a slump in revenue from poor sales. So far the recession has destroyed employment. Small businesses are the biggest source of employment in the country, and they've been shedding labor hours and boosting productivity of those left in order to just stay above water. Many have gone into debt or folded completely due to the flagging economy. Tax Breaks or Credits don't do much for small businesses in a bad way for the short term because in order to hire someone you must have capital available to be able to meet payroll while your new hire's productivity is tuned into a revenue stream. This takes time, and most small businesses have been operating on the borrowed variety of this commodity for a while.

The most effective way to incentivise small businesses into hiring more employees is to eliminate their immediate tax burden for the new hire, as well as existing employees. Small businesses who end up having to pay quarterly estimated taxes that are lower than current levels will have capital on hand in order to re-invest in growth. This can take the form of asset aquisition (generating sales tax revenue) or headcount (generating income tax revenue). The hard part is that Liberals don't get that. When you reduce income and capital taxes for individuals they spend more money instead of saving for tax day, which generates sales taxes. When you reduce income and capital taxes on businesses they invest the increased revenue in more assets and employment, thus increasing all tax revenue across the board. Tax breaks do nothing in the short term because businesses continue to operate at the same revenue level due to tax breaks not taking effect until the business files their tax return.

This delaying of revenue generation does nothing to drive growth in the private sector, and should seriously be re-evaluated. No real growth is going to be felt for years if this is the "fix" that is put in place, and by then countless more job losses and small business failures will continue to cripple our economy.

I was at : 6942-7298 San Leandro St, Oakland, CA 94621,

No Paper!

2010-01-29T07:04:00.000-08:00

Today is the first day I didn't receive a San Jose Mercury Newspaper. I'm not too distraught, though. When I canceled my susbscription they were prepared to sell me the paper at a 70% discount off of face value. The reason for this, I believe, is that the parent company for SJMN and several other Bay Area rags filed for bankruptcy this week. Bum city. I don't like to hear that a company has to risk going out of business in reorganization, but when I don't agree with the Liberal opinion shaping that takes place in lieu of news reporting I won't shed a tear, either.

I was at : 29480 Pacific St, Hayward, CA 94544,

Tax Them, and They will Leave

2010-01-27T12:22:00.000-08:00

So Oregon has it in for private industry, and the public there is complicite in their destruction. That's alright, Oregon industry... If you want to move your business, I hear Texas is still pro-Capitalism!

I was at : 801-899 Oak St, Oakland, CA 94607,

Giving Back... That which was Taken!

2010-01-27T12:19:00.000-08:00

So an Ohio State Senator is raising a stink about something that's been reported on Fox News several times in the past year. I can't say for sure, as I don't consume the litterbox leavings found on CNN, but this is the first time I've seen any other media outlet even mention the barest of depths of the "Reinvestment".
Yeah, $300M spent nation wide on signs to tell the receiving public the work being done is being done with their money. Well, actually, not really. Most of the stimulus dollars were borrowed. Yeah, the Administration and Congress had already spent the tax dollars collected; or expected to be, at least... Can they collect tax dollars from you if you're unemployed?

I was at : 760 Fletcher Ln, Hayward, CA 94544,

Too Fast!

2010-01-27T12:14:00.000-08:00

Why the hell would we want to make the same mistake the Country made with then unknown Senator Obama with now unknown Senator Brown? I can't believe what I'm hearing... Then again, knee-jerkers are among us, and the swoon on the Left for Obama is invariably going to be repeated with Brown on the Right, especially in the news...

I was at : 11th St, Union City, CA 94587,

Want to Improve Job News? Cut Federal and State Taxes on Small Business

2010-01-26T06:05:00.000-08:00

That's all I'm sayin'! Well, that and if the President wants to improve his craptacular approval numbers he should take my advice! People who don't have work are less worried about their health insurance issues than they are about their housing costs, or other necessities... You know, like eating? Does health insurance pay for that?

I was at : 801-899 Oak St, Oakland, CA 94607,

Think about a War-Zone and You Just Might Have It

2010-01-21T06:44:00.001-08:00

People are angry at the US, Fox News reports, because the government isn't doing enough to rescue or recover loved ones trapped in the havoc that is Haiti. I'm not unsympathetic, but if you're mad at the government about their lack of effort take a big look at what we HAVE done, and under what circumstances. The White House reports 1700+ rescue workers under UN control in Haiti, 500 of which are US citizens. Speaking to that, specifically the USCG has committed five capital Cutters and six air frames to the effort, the USN has fifteen capital ships in the area including the hospital ship Comfort, and an unreleased number of aircraft, the USAF is running air traffic control for the entire region, the USMC and USA have both deployed hundreds of troops to the area (seems the numbers are more than just 1700)... Somehow it seems that if you throw everything, including the kitchen sink into the effort things can get a little mixed up. That being said, if, after an overwhelming effort in on the ground and at sea support from the US, you're still upset because we're not doing enough, I would suggest you stop blaming the US government and pick up a shovel.

Post updated at 1830 due to inaccurate numbers related to vessel deployment to the area around Haiti.

The Ball has Only Started Rolling

2010-01-19T19:52:00.000-08:00

Fox News is reporting that Scott Brown has defeated Martha Coakley 52% to 47% in the special Senate election to fill the seat formerly held for the past 47 years by the late Ted Kennedy (of NCLB fame). This is a major blow to the Liberal base in DC, and a major boost for the Conservative base. We can't let this end up like the last time we (the Conservative movement, not Republicans) managed to get a head of steam behind us. There is a lot to do in DC right now, and the daunting majority of it is yet to come.

What Republicans, as Conservatives need to do is THEIR JOBS! The unfortunate reality is that the "politics as usual" in DC is not going to go away until the people we elect into office there stop worrying about their job and start actually doing it. The hardest part about being a patriotic American is knowing that your vote and the statement you make with it is only as good as the word of the schmuck you helped elect; that is, if you're lucky enough to have voted for a winning candidate. Well, the people of the State of Massachusetts have asked for a departure from "politics as usual" in hopes that newly elected Senator Scott Brown (R) will do his job instead of work every day and night with incremental legislative change aiming at simply preserving his job. I hope so, too, and I hope this victory inspires voters and candidates alike to take a renewed look at how politics in America works, and how it SHOULD work.

What a Weekend

2010-01-19T06:37:00.001-08:00

Actually, things were very quiet this past weekend; at least for me. My step brother, Kevin, celebrated his 11th birthday on Sunday. My wife ended up with almost $250 in Avon sales... Other than that things were quiet.

There was an article in the Sunday SF Chronicle that I was going to post about concerning 48 of 50 states being as upside-down fiscally as California, but I've posted so often about how lawmakers seem to not understand the very basics of economics that I figured it would have been redundant. I'm sure I'll have plenty of reason to beat that dying horse in the future.

And the shortened week begins, marked by the observance of Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday. Please be kind to your fellow human, everyone. Even without an advocate for civil rights' birthday to remind us of this, it is simply the right thing to do.

I was at : BART between Union City and Lake Merritt Station

More like Europe My ASS!

2010-01-16T16:35:00.000-08:00

Italy's Prime Minister seems to be reaching too far into the "Conflict of Interest" cookie jar in a recent Italian law proposal outed on Slashdot. This is the sort of thing that happens when you have a member of the government, high or low, making policy that directly effects an industry they have a financial interest in. The requirement that internet users participate in a vetting process for their content obliterates the anonymity the internet is supposed to be able to maintain, should a user choose to remain anonymous. The other side of things is that the internet is a competing media format to television, and the PM of Italy holds a controlling interest over a TV broadcast company in Italy. Strange, huh? What's to stop him from ordering the "YouTube Approval Board" at the Communications Ministry to deny upload access to all content that would be remotely compelling, or politically contrary to his views? Yeah, more like Europe is exactly the direction we should go... Morons!

Gray Grass?

2010-01-16T09:47:00.000-08:00

So the Silicon Valley's water woes continue. So much so that instead of driving innovation into water reclamation through treatment and recycling of storm drain run-off (very effective) to mitigate our water shortages now and in the future, they're more interested in limiting a land-owners ability to "waste" water by watering their lawns. That's right... If current local legislation were to pass, your 2000sqft front yard will only be allowed to have 500sqft of lawn. The rest of it will be further limited to only indigenous, drought resistant plant life and mulch or rock. Basically, if you own it, its not really yours. Its theirs. So much for having a beautiful front lawn to improve your curb appeal. What about your back yard? Is that subject to this new legislation as well? What won't they reach for next in the quest for more power over our lives?

We Couldn't Afford it Before... How can we Now?

2010-01-16T09:36:00.000-08:00

California's government has been generous to the poor. So generous, in fact, that being poor isn't stigmatized as much anymore unless one is also homeless, because being poor doesn't limit one's ability to still be able to live a full life. The enabling of the poor to continue to be so stifles their initiative because there is no need to be productive when the government will provide for you. That's another story, though.

California's government has also allowed for those who are poor to be able to be provided for as if they were not so. Providing preventative health care for those who can't otherwise afford it through their means alone is all well and good, if they are poor but working. Subsidizing health insurance for those who CHOOSE to obtain preventative medicine is noble, but mandating that every citizen obtain preventative medical insurance, fining those who CHOOSE not to, taxing federally those who CHOOSE to provide more for themselves and their families because they have the means to do so, and increasing the fiscal burden for the states that have chosen to do the "right thing" all along is not only wrong, it will have a very hard time standing up to Constitutional scrutiny.

This brings me to the core of this post. Today's SJ Mercury News contains an article detailing some very good points concerning the costs to the State should the rumored contents of the current bills in Congress pass. California can barely afford to maintain its current fiscal load for health care under Medi-Cal. If the State's projected budget deficit grows past the $20B the budget offices have published for 2011-2012 California won't be able to afford the increased burden the Federal government is looking to impose on ALL of the states. One thing that isn't being very well covered by the mass majority of the media outlets is that the Federal solution (read: swatting a fly with a shotgun) is to build up funding for the intended reform by taxing first, spending later. This translates into increased taxes for individuals, businesses who provided their employees' health insurance, and the states NOW, without benefits enacted by the reform coming into effect until 2013. If California is forced to pay now for services that aren't to be rendered until after California's coffers run out there won't be services to render!

Sounds like fun, huh?

"Being a little more like Europe might not be bad"?

2010-01-13T06:55:00.001-08:00

In today's SJ Mercury, an opinion piece by Paul Krugman three columns wide compares recent economic problems with the economy in the US with decades of the same problems in the EU. In one specific case, Paul compares our productivity per hour of work to that of workers in the EU, saying that Europeans "...are quite productive, too: they work fewer hours, but output per hour in France and Germany is close to U.S. levels." Europeans work less hours per day because the governments there mandate it. Since most workers rely on social programs for their livelyhood there wouldn't be an incentive to working longer hours anyway. As it is most Europeans who are lucky enough to be employed can't lose their employment for cause (be fired) without actually committing a crime, and even then its very difficult to apply any sort of discipline to the workforce. This coupled with no incentive to the human nature in all of us to go beyond the bare minimum keeps productivity, job satisfaction, and wages at the bare minimum. That is, of course, if an employer is actually willing to hire. Because of the lack of an employer's ability to remove a poor performer from his payroll employers are hesitant to hire at all.

Paul also notes the comparative employment levels in the EU versus the US. His figures indicate that in 2008 the employment rate of able bodied 25-54 year old workers in the EU was 80%. That's admitting a 20% unemployment rate. Before our economic troubles, which were caused by poor application of too much government oversight and control, our unemployment rate was around 5%. Somehow that seems different to me. What about you?

Europe's tax and gift system of government forces most of the working class and all of the poor/unemployed to rely on the government for their lives. The alternative is the capitalism we've practiced here in the US up until this point. We're being willfully torn apart though, by those we've elected to high office, because the ultimate goal is to remove our initiative, ingenuity and drive to succeed in business and life. The core of what it means to one's soul to be an American is being assualted, and its being assaulted by those who we've put in place to promote patriotism. I defy you to find a Democrat in Congress who would say the principals the United States Constitution was written to protect are moral, just and right.

Not Much Going On Today...

2010-01-12T15:35:00.001-08:00

Today was a slow day. After almost two weeks on leave, and the catch-up involved I didn't spend a lot of time paying attention to the news. That and I didn't get a newspaper this morning before I left. My subscription is still good until the 29th, but considering I opted not to renew, and made a complaint in the same call, and the fact that the paper carrier doesn't speak English, I figure they told her to stop delivery after the 29th and she just stopped it all. Oh well.

Beer Me!

2010-01-11T08:16:00.000-08:00

As seen in today's San Jose Mercury News, a California initiative having been attempted on several fronts, and supported by an overwhelming majority of the State's voters, would impose a tax on the sale of alcoholic beverages on a volume basis. Basically, the proponents of this tax are looking at a per "drink" tax of up to $0.10, so a 12oz beer, a 6oz glass of wine or a single shot of 40 proof liquor would cost $0.10 more after the imposition. That is, of course, if its allowed to pass.

So how could a tax increase that is supposedly supported by 85% of the voters in California and attempted by the Governator himself not be part of our beloved laws here? Well, the answer lies in the ability for the Liquor Lobby to buy off opposing votes to this sort of legislation. Basically, the initiatives akin to this that have been introduced in the past have fallen on their sword before they even made it to committee due to assembly members in Sacramento not being willing to vote for it because the business partners they have in the Liquor Lobby oppose it. Neat, huh?

Now, I don't know much more than what was in the article, but it would seem to me to be a beneficial tax increase. I'm conservative to the bone, but I also know the toll alcohol abuse takes on those who are directly and indirectly affected by it. If legislation was put in place that forced revenue generated by a tax of this sort to be spent ONLY on programs that directly benefit those affected by alcohol abuse then I would support it. I should also note that after a decade of being an avid beer and scotch connoisseur I have quit drinking. I guess my opinion on this subject should count, taking this into consideration, but having spent the majority of my adult life as a sailor, with the drunken stigma that is associated with that lifestyle, a tax of this sort has been felt by me as it exists in other states and in the other countries I've visited, and it wasn't a deterrent to my partaking of the drink. Take that as you will.

Unfortunately, with California's representatives being who they are morally, that won't happen. They'll dip into every dollar that hits the coffers because they don't see a reason to segregate pots of money based on the laws that created them. Its all the same money, right?