December 10, 2012

More California Economics

As we’ve said before, they’ll never learn.

One rule of thumb I got from Seth some time ago is that one of the Liberal beliefs is that “it hasn’t worked the last 99 times, so it’s definitely got to work the 100th.”


From Godfather Politics:

Massive Revenue Loss Follows California Tax Hike Vote

During the recent election, Gov. Jerry Brown and supporters of Prop. 30 assured voters that there was no chance whatsoever that raising taxes again would drive away any of the state’s businesses or millionaires.

Brown even commissioned a study from the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality that found millionaires would rather stay put than let a little thing like government thievery drive them away.

The media backed that up with stories assuring readers that California could choke the rich, no problem.

State Controller John Chiang announced Friday afternoon (the traditional time for not getting stories covered) that the state’s revenue for November came in $806.8 million under projections. That’s more than 10% under budget for the month.


Yes, Whoops.

Although Chiang’s office did not comment on the whole “rich flight” issue, the breakdown of the trouble is an $842.5 million plunge in personal income taxes, $187.8 million decrease in corporate taxes, offset by an increase of $99 million in sales taxes. The sales tax rise probably has a lot to do with increasing consumer costs in the not-so-Golden State, although it wouldn’t be surprising if some of it was from happy liberals going on a binge after the election.

Will reality finally soak in to the spending-addicted brains of liberal voters and politicians? Not likely. Liberals’ dogma dies hard.

“It hasn’t worked the first 99 times…”

Read On….

by @ 2:07 pm. Filed under Kalifornia, Liberal Economics

December 3, 2012

California Liberals and Guns

No matter what results from their misguided and often unconstitutional policies, liberals would rather stick to their — wait, I can’t say “guns”, since they are anti-gun — laurels? — and ignore whatever harmful tragedies these policies cause, as long as these tragedies don’t happen to them, personally.

Take California’s dedication to pretending there is no Second Amendment in the Constitution.

From Godfather Politics:

Gun Control Laws to Blame For California’s Rise in Crime

The city of San Bernardino is feeling the effects of California’s restrictive gun laws. The 50% increase in crime compared to last year is being blamed on a dwindling police force that’s being subjected to cuts because of the city’s bankruptcy. That may be part of it because people have perhaps grown dependent on the police to provide protection. But California’s gun control laws are some of the worst in the nation.

In order to get a carry concealed weapon license (CCW), you have to convince the police department in your interview with them that you actually have “good cause” to carry a gun. Saying that you need one for general self-defense is not good enough. Your life has to be in imminent danger, and you have to be able to prove it to them.

Out of the 2 million residents in San Bernardino County (San Bernardino city sits in the southwest corner of the county), only 2,800 have been allowed CCW’s by the county’s police department.

Unlike most other states, California’s state constitution doesn’t even address possession of guns. It doesn’t grant its citizens the right to bear arms. You’d think the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution addresses that issue enough to apply to all states, but that’s one issue where liberals blithely bring up the importance of states’ rights.

{My emphasis on that last bit, and quite applicably mentioned as California liberals only embrace the ever important concept of states’ rights when they can’t get the House and the Senate to violate the Constitution in their favor}

In a recent San Bernardino city council meeting called by one of the council members to address the citizens’ concerns of rising violence, the city attorney Jim Penman spoke candidly about the issue. He drew fire when he told attendees to “lock your doors and load your guns.” He reiterated to the local CBS station:

“Let’s be honest, we don’t have enough police officers. We have too many criminals living in this city. We have had 45 murders this year…that’s far too high for a city of this size.”

Meanwhile, the same is happening in Oakland, where officials say that they’ve experienced a 43% increase in burglaries compared to last year. Again, they’re claiming it all has to do with the police officers that are being let go because of budgetary problems. CBS reports:

“According to the latest numbers from the Oakland Police Department, more than 11,000 homes, cars or businesses have been broken into so far this year – translating to about 33 burglaries a day. The most popular targets have been cars with more than 5,700 burglarized so far this year… One of the most likely reasons for the sharp uptick in crime – city officials said they believe it’s the gradual loss of police officers from the force.”

If California would legalize the Second Amendment, the crime rate would decrease, and there wouldn’t be a need for a large police force. Just look at Kennesaw, Georgia, which passed an ordinance in 1982 that required every household to own a gun. The crime rate dropped 50% between then and 2005, and it continues to drop. In fact, it has the lowest crime rate in the U.S. But don’t bring that up with liberals. They go ballistic.

Kalifornia liberals…

by @ 11:57 am. Filed under Kalifornia, The Second Amendment

April 27, 2012

Liberal Utopia, the Prime Example


Yes, that big state on the left coast.


Once upon a time, millions upon millions of young people dreamed of moving to California. Nearly endless sunshine, pristine beaches and a booming economy made it seem like paradise to many.

But now those days are long gone. Unemployment is rampant, home prices have fallen like a rock, violent crime and gang activity are on the rise, local governments all over California are facing horrible financial problems, millions of illegal immigrants have poured into the state, traffic around the big cities is nightmarish and tax rates are absolutely outrageous. Plus there is the constant threat that your home could be destroyed by an earthquake, a wildfire or a mudslide. In recent years, hordes of hard working families have decided that they have had enough and have decided to move away from California. In fact, since the year 2000 more than 1.6 million people have moved away from the state of California.

There are still a few pockets of the state that are still very beautiful and that have been sheltered from the economic nightmare that is sweeping the rest of the state.

But in general, most cities in California are rapidly becoming giant hellholes.

Without a doubt, the “California Dream” has now become a “California Nightmare” for most residents of the state.

Do you live in California? If so, perhaps now is the time to move. The following are 16 really good reasons to move away from California…

A few of these are: California Is Run By Elitist Control Freaks That Have No Common Sense At All; Political Correctness Runs Rampant In California; California Has One Of The Worst Health Care Systems In America; California Has Some Of The Worst Schools In The Nation; California Has Some Of The Highest Tax Rates In The Nation; Poverty Is Absolutely Exploding In California…

Anyway, there are a whopping 16 reasons “to move away from california” listed and explained, right here.

What got me interested in posting about this, since Wolf and I have absolutely no interest in ever living out there in Liberal “Progressive” Never Never Land, is Seth’s long former residential ties to the state, in L.A. and San Francisco, as well as my big, bad Wolf’s sojourns, during his Navy career, at Coronado, when I read a Wall Street Journal article the other day by Allysia Finley, titled Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus.

‘California is God’s best moment,” says Joel Kotkin. “It’s the best place in the world to live.” Or at least it used to be.

Mr. Kotkin, one of the nation’s premier demographers, left his native New York City in 1971 to enroll at the University of California, Berkeley. The state was a far-out paradise for hipsters who had grown up listening to the Mamas & the Papas’ iconic “California Dreamin’” and the Beach Boys’ “California Girls.” But it also attracted young, ambitious people “who had a lot of dreams, wanted to build big companies.” Think Intel, Apple and Hewlett-Packard.

Now, however, the Golden State’s fastest-growing entity is government and its biggest product is red tape. The first thing that comes to many American minds when you mention California isn’t Hollywood or tanned girls on a beach, but Greece. Many progressives in California take that as a compliment since Greeks are ostensibly happier. But as Mr. Kotkin notes, Californians are increasingly pursuing happiness elsewhere.

Nearly four million more people have left the Golden State in the last two decades than have come from other states. This is a sharp reversal from the 1980s, when 100,000 more Americans were settling in California each year than were leaving. According to Mr. Kotkin, most of those leaving are between the ages of 5 and 14 or 34 to 45. In other words, young families.

The scruffy-looking urban studies professor at Chapman University in Orange, Calif., has been studying and writing on demographic and geographic trends for 30 years. Part of California’s dysfunction, he says, stems from state and local government restrictions on development. These policies have artificially limited housing supply and put a premium on real estate in coastal regions.

“Basically, if you don’t own a piece of Facebook or Google and you haven’t robbed a bank and don’t have rich parents, then your chances of being able to buy a house or raise a family in the Bay Area or in most of coastal California is pretty weak,” says Mr. Kotkin.

Above emboldening emphasis mine.

Read the article here.

Yes… Kalifornia, where every liberal’s dream has become reality.

by @ 10:41 am. Filed under Kalifornia, Liberals Have Their Way, The Left In All Their "Glory"

April 13, 2012

Let’s let liberals hold the money!

From CNS News:

The government spent at least $205,075 in 2010 to “translocate” a single bush in San Francisco that stood in the path of a $1.045-billion highway-renovation project that was partially funded by the economic stimulus legislation President Barack Obama signed in 2009.


“In October 2009, an ecologist identified a plant growing in a concrete-bound median strip along Doyle Drive in the Presidio as Arctostaphylos franciscana,” the U.S. Department of Interior reported in the Aug. 10, 2010 edition of the Federal Register. “The plant’s location was directly in the footprint of a roadway improvement project designed to upgrade the seismic and structural integrity of the south access to the Golden Gate Bridge.

“The translocation of the Arctostaphylos franciscana plant to an active native plant management area of the Presidio was accomplished, apparently successfully and according to plan, on January 23, 2010,” the Interior Department reported.

The bush—a Franciscan manzanita—was a specimen of a commercially cultivated species of shrub that can be purchased from nurseries for as little as $15.98 per plant…

You’d think this $205,075 figure would be a bit expensive, but the cost is well justified here:

…The particular plant in question, however, was discovered in the midst of the City of San Francisco, in the median strip of a highway, and was deemed to be the last example of the species in the “wild.”

That’s right, the last example of the species in the “wild.”

Prior to the discovery of this “wild” Franciscan manzanita, the plant had been considered extinct for as long as 62 years–extinct, that is, outside of people’s yards and botanical gardens.

Before that, the bush had grown in the “wild” in two cemeteries in San Francisco’s Richmond District as well as on Mount Davidson, a peak in the middle of San Francisco. The Department of Interior said that there had also been “unconfirmed sightings” of the shrub in the city’s Haight-Ashbury District—an area that became famous in the late 1960s as the epicenter of the psychedelic hippie movement.

…there had also been “unconfirmed sightings” of the shrub… LOL!

The Haight-Ashbury population of the plant, the Interior Department said in the Federal Register, was believed to have been “lost to urbanization.”

Oh, my!

…the Presidio Trust, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Game developed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for saving this one bush from the highway project, for which ground had been broken in December 2009.

The agreement of Dec. 21, 2009 – Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Planning, Development, and Implementation of the Conservation Plan for Franciscan Manzanita – explains how, why, and when the bush would be moved and which agencies would be responsible for which aspects of the move.

To cut to the chase, the cost summary goes like this:

The $100,000 to pay for the “hard removal,” the $79,470 to pay for the “establishment, nurturing and monitoring” of the plant for a decade after its “hard removal,” and the $25,605 to cover the “reporting requirements” for the decade after the “hard removal,” equaled a total cost of $205,075 for “translocating” this manzanita bush.

But those were not the only costs incurred by taxpayers on behalf of the bush. According to the MOA, other costs included:

–“Contract for and provide funding not to exceed $7,025.00 for initial genetic or chromosomal testing of the Mother Plant by a qualified expert to be selected at Caltrans’ sole discretion.”

There’s more, the entire article is here.

One California nursery currently allows customer to purchase Franciscan manzanitas online for $15.98 per bush. Another sells them for $18.00 per bush.

by @ 10:30 am. Filed under I'm Easily Amused, Kalifornia, San Francisco Liberals

February 24, 2008

When I Said I Was Leaving California…

…to return to the United States, I wasn’t kidding.

You simply can’t trust any politicians in that G-d forsaken liberal hell hole — just before leaving San Francisco, for example, I voted for Gavin Newsome for mayor. Why? Because he was the most conservative and businesslike of all the candidates, despite being the usual liberal. And what was his first big move? To personally and massively conduct same sex marriages!

Previously, I had voted for Arnold Schwartzennegger to replace lying left winger Gray Davis as governor during the recall election. Under Arnold, the state’s government has now produced this.

The holidays are a busy time, so there’s a pretty good chance that you weren’t aware of a new California state bill which was passed a few months back and took effect last month. Better sit down for this one, it’s a doozy! On October 12th Govern-ator Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law California Senate Bill 777. That bill eliminates Education Code 212, which defines “sex” as “the biological condition or quality of being a male or female human being.”

In effect the bill redefines the term “gender” for all schoolchildren by adding Educational Code 210.7, which will read: “‘Gender’ means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether of not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” In other words, it is a redefinition of gender that says you are whatever you choose to be regardless of your anatomical make-up. It tells kids that just because you are born a little girl or little boy, that doesn’t mean you are.

Unbelievable! Well, perhaps not for California. The word “tolerance” out there means forcing liberal agendas down peoples’ throats, and doing so by writing such efforts into law.

The ridiculous law has effectively banned use of the terms “mom” and “dad” from California schools. The reason? Using those terms promotes a discriminatory bias against alternative lifestyle parents. I never thought I’d live to see the day when “mommy” and “daddy” would be considered bad words. All kinds of vulgarity and foul language are just fine in these modern, progressive times - but you better not say “mom” and “dad!” That’s wrong! What country am I living in anyway?

It’s important to understand that this stuff will be taught to all children in the public school system beginning in kindergarten! Indoctrinating five and six year-olds to favor sodomy as a healthy and normal lifestyle choice has rankled some parents to say the least. Various Christian grassroots organizations have now joined together in calling for an “exodus” from the California public school system. The coalition includes Eagle Forum, the Campaign for Children and Families, and Exodus Mandate, as well as ten others.

Here is where we see why liberals oppose school vouchers; Such a program would enable children to escape the clutches of a public school system that seeks to indoctrinate them into beliefs that run contrary to those embraced by mainstream American society since our nation’s beginnings.

Because several million California families can’t afford to send their children to private schools (and is there enough room in said institutions to handle all the children of right thinking families?) or have them home-schooled (and just imagine how difficult it would be to find enough home-school teachers to accommodate the numbers involved!), the kids are literally trapped in this situation that will have a negative effect on their futures and those of California society, such as it is.

The California school system has been effectively turned into a wingnut farm.

I applaud the efforts of the various organizations that support an exodus from California schools and wish them luck, but also have to wonder what, exactly, they can accomplish as a bottom line. It seems to me that the only realistic alternative, since the population of the state is mostly liberal-voting, would be for concerned parents with average household incomes to move their families out of California altogether.

Alternative lifestyle groups claim that all they want is the end of discriminatory bias. Officials with the Gay-Straight Alliance Network and the Transgender Law Center already have outlined what they believe to be nondiscriminatory treatment in the school system. “If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so,” the groups advise. “Whenever students are divided up into boys and girls, you should be allowed to join the group or participate in the program that matches your gender identity as much as possible.”

Further, the groups advise, “If you change your name to one that better matches your gender identity, a school needs to use that name to refer to you.” Get it? Take your choice. Who do you feel like being today - Max or Maxine? The advocacy group also warns schools against bringing parents into any such discussion with students. Yeah, keep those parents out of this by all means. It takes a village, not parents.

California is a supremely beautiful state, but what festers among its population and political body far outweighs any reason I, as a right thinker, would have for living there again.

by @ 5:17 pm. Filed under Assholes, Kalifornia, Liberal Agendas