"Is post-pandemic California coming back or in decline?"

is the title of a column by Dan Walters in my local dead tree paper, in which I ran across this interesting bit:

Joint Venture Silicon Valley and the Bay Area News Group commissioned the poll which found widespread dissatisfaction with the region’s economic and social life and an inclination toward going elsewhere.The poll found that 71% of respondents feel the quality of life in the Bay Area has grown worse over the past five years. A slight majority say they are likely to leave the Bay Area in the next few years, most citing high housing and other living costs and deteriorating quality of life.

"A slight majority"...did you get that? HALF the people in your city want to move away, but it's only slightly over half! Three quarters of the people you asked said things keep getting worse and half say they're thinking of leaving in the next few years...welcome to California!
Walters is one of the best writers, IMHO, when it comes to California politics. He is in a position to see if California, like the Titanic, still has its lights on when it goes down!

Xavier Seen Such a Dishonest California Politician?

Californians aren't braindead, although you'd never know it from the quality of public officials they send to Sacramento year after year. And here's proof of it: liberal California politicians have to lie constantly to maintain their power, lest the common people they so disdain rise up against them. Case in point:

There is a ballot initiative coming up for a vote soon to repeal the onerous added gasoline tax to be added in November. The tax would add an additional twelve cents a gallon to gasoline that is already the highest priced in the nation. Fine. Let the voters decide. That's the democratic way isn't it? Let informed voters made the decision. It's that whole "informed" part that Democrat pols don't trust you with.

The office of the top law enforcement official in the state, Attorney General Xavier Becerra, D-Ishonest, is responsible for writing the official summary of the ballot measure, which is supposed to be an impartial description of the measure. (Stop laughing!) Becerra, who, had he been around when the saying "Crooked as a dog's hind leg"was written, might have been the maxim maker's model.

AG Becerra wrote the summary of a repeal of a regressive tax measure (minorities and poor hardest hit) without managing to use either the word "tax" or "fee" to describe it. In fact, it is so egregious that he is being sued because of it.
Republican Travis Allen, remarkably a Republican, is suing Becerra for misrepresenting the initiative, casting it as an effort to, and I quote, "eliminate recently enacted road repair and transportation funding". The bastards!! The money fairies brought Californians cash to repair their roads, and some big meanies are trying to take it away from us!

And by "us", of course, he means the State Government, and the magic money fairies are you, every time you fill up your gas tank.

The stakes are high. The 43%, twelve cent a gallon hike in taxes, and the twenty cent a gallon hike in diesel fuel are expected to bring in $5 Billion (with a "B") a year. And as far as regressive taxes on the poor, this one has a double whammy, because everything you buy in the stores comes in on a truck. Your groceries, hardware, clothing, shoes, even your Amazon order, is transported at least in part by a truck or series of trucks. If the cost of fuel goes up, the prices of all those goods must go up at least incrementally. So in addition to paying more in gas to go to work, or to the store, or on vacation, you'll be paying more for everything you buy. Everything. You'll then find it harder to make ends meet and put food on the table and all the Democrat politicians will tell you it's those evil corporations that are stealing you blind. Right.

So, even though most of California's reputation is well deserved, remember this: we're not all braindead out here, and the politicians even have to lie to the ones who are to keep themselves in power.

When Idiots Write Gun Control Laws, We Get Idiotic Laws, Redux

Radio guy Tom Sullivan is fond of saying that the "C" students are running the country. Tom may be an optimist. Here in California, we have yet another example of "We have to do something about all these shootings!". In this case, yet another onerous gun control law that will not make anyone one whit safer.

The genius savants in Sacramento have passed a bill in the state Senate, that would register ammunition buyers, forcing them to submit personal information and fifty dollars for a background check. The vast majority of people in this state and indeed the United States, are law abiding citizens who use their guns for sport, recreation and even self defense.

Let's look at this proposed legislation not from the perspective that finally the legislature is doing something, but will the legislation produce the desired results and at what cost?

Let's back away from firearms for a minute, since talking about guns makes some people crazy. Let's say that there have been a number of highly publicized, high profile, drunk driving incidents around the country. One drunk driver drove onto a school playground, killing and injuring a number of children. One drunk driver drove onto the sidewalk in front of a movie theater, killing and injuring a number of people standing in line to see a movie. Another seriously injured a popular, prominent politician on her way to a town hall meeting. The number of people who drive drunk and kill or injure people is very small compared to the number of licensed drivers, but...we have to do SOMETHING!

So, the brain trust under the dome in Sacramento puts their best minds on the problem. You can't drive drunk without gas in your car (all you drunken Volt drivers notwithstanding!). So, in addition to licensing cars and drivers, Sacramento lawmakers want to require you to have a separate license to purchase gasoline (or electric cars). A fee will be levied on every new licensee, and a questionnaire exploring every licensee's drinking habit will be filed away for law enforcement to reference. The fact that this file will be a virtual duplicate of the records on file at the DMV means that there will be an additional level of bureaucracy and twice as many files for law enforcement to go through to get the same limited results.

Now, ask yourself, how are drunk drivers typically apprehended? By police officers combing through DMV records? Or is it primarily officers on the street, following up the relative few who commit the crimes, rather than the millions who do not.

Let's look at some of the high profile gun cases that get everyone's blood boiling:

The Sandy Hook shooting. If the shooter's Mom had been required to obtain a license before she purchased her ammunition, do you think this would have deterred her son in any way? No.

The Aurora theater shooting. The miscreant guilty of that crime purchased a large quantity of ammunition, but apparently there was nothing criminal on his record that would have raised any flags. (He also illegally constructed bombs, which indicate that even if his ammunition purchases had been criminalized somehow, he would not have hesitated to attempt to obtain ammunition illegally.)

The Virginia Tech shooting. Once again, nothing on his record that prevented him from purchasing the guns he used. How would an ammunition license magically have turned up something different?

The Gabby Giffords shooting. Same story.

The Fort Hood shooting. I know people like Obama like to forget about this one because it doesn't fit the "template". Both guns and ammo are tightly controlled on military bases. Requiring civilians to obtain ammunition licenses would not have stopped this bit of terrorism ludicrously entitled "workplace violence".

The Columbine shooting. Same as Sandy Hook. When they obtained the weapons, they had access to ammunition.

The Boston Marathon bombers. Duplicating the law that could not keep them from possessing a gun (or bombs) would not have kept them from obtaining ammunition.

In every case, some mythical ammunition license would not have prevented any of these horrific crimes. And to achieve that end, you would hassle millions of sportsmen and citizens, some of them lower income, from obtaining what they need to defend themselves against those who do not obey the law. Now put yourself in the shoes of a typical sportsman or hunter: How happy would you be to have to make an additional trip to the DMV before you purchased your next tank of gas?

Far better to have law enforcement vigorously follow up and prosecute every drunk driver and everyone who commits a crime using a firearm. The Obama administration has a notoriously low record in prosecuting people who have broken federal gun laws. (Eric Holder comes to mind!) Almost as if the Obama administration would rather have gun control as a political issue rather than to apprehend those guilty of crimes with firearms...

The fifty dollar fee, in addition to the fee required to purchase a firearm, the firearm itself and ammunition, will be a disproportionate financial difficult for the poor. The prohibitions against "Saturday Night Specials" was first instituted to try to keep guns out of the hands of inner city blacks, regardless of their disposition to criminal activity. Dianne Feinstein and her bodyguards will have all the ammunition they need. Some single mom living in a bad neighborhood, or some battered spouse whose better half is not particularly deterred by a paper restraining order may not.

The law will not work as designed. It will be costly to maintain and will yield virtually no benefit. Better to budget money for officers on the street, not file cabinets full of dead trees. Doing something just for the sake of doing something may please a political constituency, temporarily, but apart from hassling the majority of law abiding citizens will not yield any positive results, certainly not those the lawmakers supposedly want to achieve.



When Idiots Write Gun Control Laws, We Get Idiotic Laws (part I)
Cross posted at LCR.

Southern California : The 51st State?

I saw this story last night, and put it in the Saturday links, but seeing LCR's piece on it and the comments it generated, got me thinking a little more seriously about it. Jogged some old memories, actually.

In the past, the talk was always about the North seceding from the south! I think boundaries and the redness or blueness of the new states would be a concern. LCR seems to think they might be "purplish". I'd always figured we'd draw the line below Fresno, something like this:



...which would definitely tilt the North towards the red and the south would be bluer.

Since the 51st state would have two new US Senators, making sure that they were at 50% conservative or at least competitive could be a deal breaker. No one (sane) wants two more liberal senators in DC.

One practical concern I used to think about was the cost of doubling the bureaucracy:
Two governors, two Lt. Governors, two DMVs, two boards of everything, and it just seemed like quite an expense. Now, it may be more like the old joke:

Q. Why is divorce so expensive?

A. Because it's worth it!

It may be a little bit idealistic of our friends in the south, to think that all the ills of the state reside in Sacramento. Make that, "currently reside". Do you honestly think that Los Angeles as the capitol of Southern California would be anything other than the same liberal big government types we have up here?

Again, it comes down to where you draw the line. Splitting the liberal power hold of Sacramento/SF/LA may do great things to make the states more competitive and more business friendly. But, two bare liberal majorities would mean extra liberal votes in the Senate, confirmation of judges, etc.

It is an interesting idea. One, perhaps, whose time has come, should Californians ever decide where the line should be drawn.

One suggestion for the southerners: "South California" sounds so Dakota-ish. I would suggest a name more in line with the deep cultural contributions of southern California: "La La Land".

Update: Mr. Stone wants to gerrymander the state so that LA is part of "Northern" California. Yeah. Right! In your dreams! Northern California doesn't want your excess baggage.


More at Memeorandum, LCR

Cross posted at LCR, Say Anything.

Barbara "Ma'am" Boxer Redesigns CA Flag

Al Gore has one flying over his California Estate...

(No polar bears were actually harmed in the making of this flag!)

Don't Call Me Ma'am - New ad from Carly

Just a short (uh, vertically challenged, to you, Ma'am!) dissertation on the arrogance of one of the denizens of the Washington Swamp.

Some interesting notes from the Fiorina camp:

* Since 1993, Boxer Has Voted At Least Seven Times To Freeze Or Cut Billions Of Dollars In Defense Funding; Feinstein Opposed Her On Five Of The Seven Cuts. (S. 1298, CQ vote #253: Motion Agreed To 61-32: R 35-5; D 26-27, 9/9/93, Boxer and Feinstein Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #181: Rejected 28-71: R 2-51; D 26-20; I 0-0, 5/24/95, Boxer Voted Yea and Feinstein Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 13, CQ Vote #227: Rejected 12-87: R 1-53; D 11-34; I 0-0, 5/25/95, Boxer Voted Yea and Feinstein Voted Nay; S. Con. Res. 57, CQ Vote #113: Rejected 42-57: R 6-47; D 36-10; I 0-0, 5/15/96, Boxer Voted Yea and Feinstein Voted Nay; S. 1087, CQ Vote #389: Motion Agreed To 56-42: R 50-3; D 6-39, 8/10/95, Boxer and Feinstein Voted Nay; H.R. 3610, CQ Vote #200: Passed 72-27: R 50-3; D 22-24, 7/18/96, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea; S. 1061, CQ Vote #229: Motion rejected 27-72: R 2-53; D 25-19, 9/10/97, Boxer Voted Yea and Feinstein Voted Nay; H.R. 4576, CQ #126: Motion Agreed To 83-15: R 54-0; D 29-15; I 0-0, 6/13/00, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea)

* In 2007, Boxer Was One Of Only 14 Senators To Vote Against Supplemental Funding, Including Money For Body Armor And Defense Health Programs, For The Wars In Iraq And Afghanistan. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea)

* In 2003, Boxer Was One Of Just 12 Senators To Oppose The $87 Billion Supplemental Appropriation For The Reconstruction Of Iraq And Afghanistan; The Bill Included Funding For Body Armor And Communications Equipment For The Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea; "Highlights Of Iraq, Afghanistan Measures," The Associated Press, 10/17/03)

* Boxer Was One Of Only 25 Senators Who Voted Against Condemning A MoveOn.Org Ad That Questioned General David Petraeus's Integrity; Feinstein Voted To Condemn The Ad. (HR 1585, CQ Vote #344: Passed 72-25: R 49-0; D 22-24; I 1-1, 9/20/07, Boxer Voted Nay and Feinstein Voted Yea)

Working hard, all right! For all the wrong things!

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel

California Dreamin'...of a Red State Christmas?

Our good friend and Left Coast Rebel, Tim Daniel, files a report on the state of Golden State politics here:
The Battle for America 2010: Campaigns State-by-State, Six Weeks To Go.

Tim seems to be making himself quite at home over at Pajamas Media. Way to go, Tim!

SEIU Endorses Marijuana Legalization Measure

CBS 13:

If Proposition 19 passes in November, California would become the first state to legalize and regulate recreational pot use. Adults could possess up to one ounce of the drug.

Supporters have targeted two areas of concern for voters: the economy and crime. Legalized pot would bring much-needed revenue to the state and reduce the influence of drug cartels, they said.

The measure was endorsed Tuesday by the largest labor union in the state. The Service Employees International Union, which has 700,000 members, said revenue generated by the initiative would help California preserve (union) jobs and avoid cuts to key services such as education and health care.

The union represents workers in health care, building services and state and local government.

Higher education? Sounds like the SEIU wants to stem job losses and seed California's prosperity, or at least get the people where they don't give a rat's patoot about what's going on in California.

Time to buy munchie futures...

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything

"Poverty or Plastic?"

I tend to agree with the maker of the ad, we have many more important problems in California than a proliferation of plastic bags. Plastic bags can be and are recycled. Cloth bags, on the other hand, can make people sick if not properly cleaned for reuse.

I would be much happier with the California legislature if they spent more of their time trying to figure out how to move California from the brink of bankruptcy and spent less time catering to the environmentalist wacko fringe.

A Tale of Two Governors

In the Golden State of California, not all is sweetness and light. It has been noted recently that Arnold Schwarzenegger's poll ratings are nearly equal to those of disgraced, despised and deposed Governor Gray Davis.

Schwarzenegger's poll numbers are now exactly the same as Gray Davis' numbers in August 2003, two months before he was recalled by California voters.The poll found about one in five voters (22%) currently approves of Schwarzenegger’s performance as governor, while 70% disapprove. They are the worst poll numbers the Field Poll has ever reported for Schwarzenegger since he took office. Schwarzenegger's numbers hit a high watermark of 65% in September 2004.

So, that means he's just as bad as Davis? Should we expect "Recall- The Sequel"? Not really. Because as much as the Governator's RINO policies and inability to steer the state against the wishes of the Democratically controlled state legislature have damaged him politically, Arnie has something going for him that Gray didn't: He's not greedy. One example: Governor Schwarzenegger refuses to accept the $175,000 salary that comes with the job. Gray? Not so much!

The population was fed up with Gray Davis' incompetence which led the state into disastrous energy deals and brownouts, but it was the appearance of his "Play for Pay" deals that really got him into trouble. As I recall, (no pun intended) there were a number of instances where it seemed that mysteriously, after large campaign contributions worked their way into Gray's coffers that any legislation that the donor wanted passed was signed by the Governor!

So, while the peasants grabbed their pitchforks and stormed Sacramento over Gray, Arnold doesn't have that same whiff of venality that Gray carried about him. Arnie may not be the brightest bulb in the Capitol Marquee, but at least he's honest!

And what about that Democrat controlled state legislature? How do they fare in today's political climate?

The silver lining is that Schwarzenegger's numbers are better than the Legislature's numbers. Only 16% of those surveyed have a favorable impression of state legislators while 74% disapprove. The good news? Those numbers reflect a 3% increase in the Legislature's approval ratings since March.

In other words, don't look for Conan the Republican to be recalled any time soon.
But because of term limits, He won't be back! Heh.

Cross posted at Left Coast Rebel, Say Anything