Saturday, April 28, 2012

The 3 Letters say it all about California.

The Wall Street Journal 's Opinion and Letters to the Editor  had three interesting letters that describe how California the once  Great State  of Opportunity slowly sank . Enough as it seems as they say if California goes , and so does the Country . Here's what people have to say.

California: Land of Cognitive (and Tax) Dissonance

Demographer Joel Kotkin is perhaps the most expert person there is on the woes that are besetting California ("The Weekend Interview with Joel Kotkin: The Great California Exodus" by Allysia Finley, April 21). He hits all the bases—high taxes, overregulation, punitive zoning, green-energy mania, economically destructive environmentalism, public-employee-union domination, idiotic and wasteful public spending projects, and goes on to identify those responsible for so much of the dysfunction—the progressive elite he calls "the new regime"—as the reason young middle-class working families are fleeing the state.
Yet, we find out midway through the interview that for all his knowledge, Mr. Kotkin actually voted for Jerry Brown for governor, the leading light of the "new regime," because he found that Mr. Brown was "interesting and thought outside the box." Isn't that vote and Mr. Kotkin's explanation of it the real California problem? We used to think of California as the "Land of the Lotus Eaters." Today, a better description would be the Land of Cognitive Dissonance.
Scot McConachie
Des Plaines, Ill.
Within our own extended family this year we have seen a daughter, and a niece and her family flee California. In the former case, after obtaining her master's degree in education in San Francisco, and seeing no employment opportunities in the bankrupt state, she migrated to Colorado and was employed within three months. Besides the wonderful outdoors environment, she has discovered the joys of lower taxes, lower taxes and lower taxes. In the latter case, our niece, her husband and their two little girls took advantage of job mobility to relocate to Dallas. The math of the move was ever so simple: less expensive, much less expensive, significantly less expensive.
These are very bright, well-educated, hard-working young people who expect to build good careers and futures while accumulating modest wealth. They will contribute mightily to the strength of their new home states. They left California because they realized that the state is not run for the benefit of taxpayers like themselves. How many thousands more are joining them? But the thieves (there is no better name for them) who run California are delusional and in denial about this outmigration.
John G. Graboski
           Waterloo, Neb.

Like Joel Kotkin, my parents were Truman Democrats when they moved to California and I began kindergarten in 1944 in Pasadena. My 41-year career in the criminal justice system began with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1960, after which I experienced the transformation of California from the Golden State to the sad state it has since fallen into.
Mr. Kotkin's experienced assessment of California's problems should serve as an eye-opener to the middle class, dwindling from the unrelenting expansion of government, insane taxes, laws and regulations by the left-wing Democrat majority in the legislature.
California Democrats indeed are responsible for California crashing with, of course, the help of clueless voter-assisted economic suicide. Beyond setting the bad national example for taxing and regulating people and business out of the state, California's delusional Democrats are responsible for the state's failed public education money-pit and for inviting freeloaders into the state to take advantage of the overly generous welfare system.
Adding insult to injury, California lays out the welcome mat for illegal aliens to burden taxpayers with more welfare, plus education and health care—not to mention raising the cost of crime, incarceration and the gang infestation of neighborhoods.
Daniel B. Jeffs
Apple Valley, Calif.


California's Power Crisis
Dear Fellow Americans,
America has engaged in some finger wagging lately because California doesn't have enough electricity to meet its needs. The rest of the country (including President Bush) seems to be just fine with letting Californians dangle in the breeze without enough power to meet their needs.
This is how it really is:
California ranks 48th in the nation in power consumed per person.
California grows more than half the nation's fruit, nuts, and vegetables. We're keeping them. We need something to eat when the power goes out. We grow 99 percent or more of the nation's almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwi, olives, persimmons, pistachios, prunes, raisins, and walnuts. Hope you won't miss them.
California is the nation's number-one dairy state. We're keeping our dairy products. We'll need plenty of fresh ones since our refrigerators can't be relied upon. Got milk?
We Californians are gonna keep all our high-tech software in-state. Silicon Valley is ours, after all. Without enough electricity, which you're apparently keeping for yourselves, we just plain don't have enough software to spare. Can you say "typewriter"?
We're keeping all our airplanes. California builds a good percentage of the commercial airliners available to fly you people to where you want to go. When yours wear out, you'd better hope Boeing's Washington plant can keep you supplied. There isn't enough electricity here to allow us to export any more planes than we need ourselves. And while we're at it, we're keeping all our high-tech aerospace stuff, too. Oh, yeah, and if you want to make a long-distance call, remember where the satellite components and tracking systems come from. Maybe you could get back in the habit of writing letters.
Want to see a blockbuster movie this weekend? Come to California. We make them here. Since we'll now have to make them with our own electricity, we're keeping them. The labs, printing facilities, editing facilities, and sound facilities are all here.
Want some nice domestic wine? We produce over 17 million gallons per year. We'll need all of it to drown our sorrows when we think about the fact that no matter how many California products we export to make the rest of America's lives better, America can't see its way clear to help us out with a little electricity. You can no longer have any of our wine.

You all complain that we don't build enough power plants. Well, you don't grow enough food, write enough software, make enough movies, build enough airplanes and defense systems, or make enough wine.
The Californians

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

1 trillion $ student Loan.

Student Occupiers plan Nation wide protests as Loan Debt hit's 1 Trillion Dollars.

When the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced that student loan debt had passed the $1 trillion.Students are just buying into all the hype and can’t manage money, and that is the bottom line. I suppose they should have been taught better in high school, about economics.On Wednesday in Manhattan, street performers will enact mock trials of bankers, says Ross, who will be playing one of the lenders in a skit. “Once the debtors are released, I’m not sure what our fates will be,” he says with a laugh.Other plans are also afoot for Wednesday. Groups such as Occupy Student Debt and a coalition pushing to pass the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 (HR 4170) plan to use the day to raise awareness, says Robert Applebaum, a lawyer behind the website, which officially launches Wednesday. According to the College Board, the 2011-12 published total cost for tuition, fees, and room and board at an in-state four-year public institution averaged $17,131, but the actual cost for the family is much higher.  According to the Business Insider, there is nearly $70,000 in additional college costs that aren’t included in these estimates including college tour costs, computers, transportation, laundry, cell phone, etc.  Even with our very thrifty (even frugal) college student, there were calculators needed for calculus, and last quarter a suit for job interviews.  None of these hidden costs are included in tuition estimates.With the cost of college increasing at an average of 8% per year, even at a base rate of $17,131 per year, parents of a two-year old starting a college savings plan would have to save about $925 per month at 4% earnings growth to pay for four years of college.  Even if they were able to earn an 8% average growth rate on their savings, they would still need to save around $600 per month to do it. Parents need guidance around paying for college and we’ve written recently on scholarships for average students or those looking for high-award scholarships as well as ways to get Uncle Sam to pay for your MBA or your kid’s college education.


The result of three decades of state governments’ (of both parties) shameful behavior: a debt of 90 BILLION dollars to the five state retirement funds and a chronic underfunding of state universities while maintaining the fiction of adequate appropriations. At the moment, Northern Illinois University is still owed 45 MILLION dollars of THIS YEAR’S appropriated funding (fiscal year began on July 1, 2011). At the same time, state Republicans are making ready to try to repeal the already too-low tax increase of the last year. Those with enough $$ will go to private schools where their worries are affordable. The rest of us? we either do without — and the effects on the Republic have yet to be fully felt — OR we’ll sign up at a for-profit school and borrow $$ on what the British call the “never-never.” School Debt generally in the US now exceeds total credit card debt“Trillion Dollar day is a reminder that private banks are still very much in the predatory lending  business; this time it’s students not homeowners,” added Professor Andrew Ross, another organizer with the Occupy Student Debt 1TDay campaign..

Saturday, April 21, 2012

California' $ train to nowhare .

 Bullet train in China, similar to ones that may be used in proposed California high-speed rail line was built by the Chinese Government a lot cheaper , and faster than the one imagined by Ca . Gov. Jerry Brown.
California has plenty of problems, but a shortage of ways to get between its two largest metropolitan areas is not among them .California is about to embark on its biggest infrastructure project in decades, a project that isn't fully funded, where predictions of profitability are being questioned, and which depends largely on the American taxpayer.. California is broke , and it can't pay for this 'wonder' of modern transportation , the $100 billion bullet train. Two years ago, California voters approved the sale of $10 billion in bonds to fund the rail program. Where is the other $33 billion supposed to come from? The federal government and private partners.The cost of this train out weighs how much California spends on k-12 Education a rough 54-62 billion a year ( which  , And even if the state can find the bucks, should it spend them on building a high-speed rail line, a cool choo-choo? Especially when higher education in California is such a train wreck? ,streamline the costs of this ambitious and economic disaster should the train go forward.  The Big problem is that if this Train jumps , it still will take years for any ground breaking ceremony . No one is going to hire anyone in California , most likely California will outsource , even worse 'Out-shore  the whole job . The example is the Bay Bridge in the Bay  which is made of 99 % Chinese Steal , and sure enough the Train would be built by Chinese manufactured parts. EDUCATION AT RISK. Bullet train versus book learning doesn't have to be an either/or question, nor should it be. But first Sacramento needs to pump a lot more revenue into its treasury.Gov. Jerry Brown has been trying to do that, but so far he hasn't produced. He's proposing a soak-the-rich income tax hike, augmented with a minimal sales tax increase, for the November ballot. But that wouldn't cover any new rail costs.So denouncing bullet train skeptics as "declinists" — the governor's favorite new word — rings hollow when the vault is vacant .With the California Federation of Teachers, the California Nurses Association, the Courage Campaign and civil rights lawyer Molly Munger all mucking up his plans for a ballot measure seeking a temporary tax hike (not to mention some disgruntled unions bitching about where he’s getting funding for his measure), you gotta wonder why Gov. Jerry Brown has also taken on high speed rail as a cause.But he has. He’s even suggested that failure to build an 800-mile high-speed rail (HSR) line up the spine of California would reduce the state to the status of a third-world country. But tipping the scales at over $100 billion, with Republicans in Congress threatening to prevent federal funds from being used for the project at all (although, or maybe because, it’s a favorite of President Obama), and with the state auditor questioning the project’s financial feasibility, HSR looks to critics like a giant (hash) pipe dream..

 "you can’t figure out how to pay for schools and colleges, road improvements, support for the elderly and disabled — not to mention a hundred other things — should you begin building a railroad no one is sure how to pay for? Especially when several recent reports, including one by the railroad authority’s own peer review group, suggest there’s a huge risk of financial disaster?”


Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Scandalize and Tantilize .

 Secret service Scandal & the GSA Scandal is just about enough for me .
Whew! This has been a vary bad week for the Nation and Pres. Obama . The Press is probably sucking it in and the foreign press just laughing . The scandal, which has become an election-year embarrassment for the Obama administration, erupted last week after 11 Secret Service agents were sent home from Cartagena, Colombia, after a night of partying that reportedly ended with at least some of them bringing prostitutes back to their hotel. The special agents and uniformed officers were in Colombia in advance of President Barack Obama's arrival for the Summit of the Americas. They have been suspended and the agency has revoked their security clearance..Two U.S. military officials have said they include five Army Green Berets. One of the officials said the group also includes two Navy Explosive Ordinance Disposal technicians, two Marine dog handlers and an Air Force airman. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under wayPeople briefed on the incident have said the agents brought women back to the Cartagena hotel, where other members of the U.S. delegation and the White House press corps also were staying. Overnight visitors were required to leave identification at the front desk and leave by 7 a.m. When one woman hadn't left, by one account, it raised questions among hotel staff and police, who investigated. They found the woman with the agent in a hotel room and a dispute arose over whether the agent should have paid her .Secret Service's Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles that agency's internal affairs, is investigating and the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General has been notified.,least 10 military personnel who were staying at the same hotel are also being investigated for alleged misconduct."Twenty or 21 women foreign nationals were brought to the hotel," Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the ranking Republican on the Senate Homeland Security Committee, said Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan told her. Eleven of the Americans involved were Secret Service, she reported, and "allegedly Marines were involved with the rest."
 House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Pete King said his panel will decide whether hearings should be held.
The Colombian prostitute who triggered the scandal that has rocked the Secret Service got angry with two agents who refused to pay her full price for servicing the two of them, leading to a financial dispute over between $40 and $60, according to a government source who has been briefed on the investigationThese two agents are complete idiots. They managed to trash their careers along with the careers of 9 of their buddies as well as several military personnel over $50. I am sure that the other nine agents who were not involved in the dispute with the prostitute are furious with these to idiots since they have cost them their jobs as well. I am not saying that the other nine agents did not do anything wrong, they deserve to get canned for their behavior, but at least they were smart enough not to make a scene. I am sure that these two would be safer in custody right now than they are on the street as I am sure the other people that got caught up in this scandal because of them would like to kill these two idiots. The minute the prostitute started making a scene they should have just paid her to shut her up and get her out of there. But then their superior attitude got the better of their common sense, thinking that who would dare challenge them, after all they were secret service agents. They are supposed to be elite law enforcement personnel, instead they turned out to be nothing more than two idiots on a power trip thinking they could get away with anything. Now they have trashed their careers, the careers of nine other agents, and a number of military personnel because of their total arrogance.


But it’s unlikely this mushrooming scandal will disappear any time soon, amid reports that nearly a dozen U.S. Secret Service agents and more than five military personnel caroused and consorted with prostitutes at a hotel  in advance of Obama’s Colombia visit last week. And this comes on top of congressional  hearings this week  into revelations that General Services Administration officials squandered $823,000 on a Las Vegas retreat back in 2010 – complete with a $75,000 bicycle building exercise, a clown show and $6,325 spent on commemorative coins.
So far, at least a half dozen  House and Senate committees have opened investigations into the GSA and Secret Service scandals, with many other Republicans seemingly eager to join in the finger wagging and condemnations. “As I look through this, there’s no wonder that the American people have lost faith in their government,” lamented freshman Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa. “I want indictments!” declared Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C.
Before all this misery beset the administration, it looked as if Obama had turned the corner on the economy and was back in the political catbird’s seat heading into the fall election campaign. While unemployment, economic growth and the housing market still left much to be desired, Obama could make the plausible argument that he had succeeded in leading the country out of the worst financial meltdown and recession of modern times, that he saved the U.S. auto industry by bailing out GM and Chrysler, and that he restored investor and consumer confidence. “The latest misconduct at the General Services Administration makes me cringe for the taxpayers who expect every agency in their government to fulfill their mission with integrity,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, as she opened the morning session. “And it makes me cringe that the good people at GSA who work hard everyday have been humiliated by a few bad actors.”


Not much to say , it's been a bad week for Obama  , even though he may not be directly involved .


Sunday, April 15, 2012

The 'War on Women' Myth.

The War won Women is silly , but just whose war  ? The Media Myth makers , and the reality of Poverty of Women.
There is a great debate lately on assumption that Obama is at war with women ? I gaggle at the debate, and since that whole perspective was based on sole idea of making available contraceptives for Women in religious institutions . Overall , I can't accuse the President of contributing to this new hype .Speaking to women as though they were a single body ignores reality — and insults them. The recent flap over Hilary Rosen’s foolish swipe at Ann Romney illustrates the desperation of the Democrats’ rhetoric and quest. Remember It was Rush Limbaugh insulted a woman . Rush called her a "slut" for arguing for birth control ... That was not Obama's fault. Obama as usual can't keep his mouth shut , and raised more controversy.focus-grouped rhetoric about a Republican “war on women.” It may raise money and hackles among their base. But it does little to solve the real challenges facing American women — and men — created or made worse by the Obama administration.Democrats are now buoyed by recent stats showing that the likely GOP nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, is running behind the president in support from women. Obama has strong lead among women, 57 percent to 38 percent, in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll — though the Rosen flap may change those numbers. But the president has a gender gap of his own — trailing Romney among men by eight points, 52 percent to 44 percent .The White House has wasted little time capitalizing on Mr. Romney's perceived weakness among women
Mr. Romney's unsurprising response was to go on defense. The campaign rolled out a bevy of female supporters to express outrage and to claim that White House economic policies are hurting women. True enough, but it's only the start of a better response. Mr. Romney's advantage lies in explaining to women why fat-boy government in general disproportionately hurts them, and how better policies are the path to genuine liberation.
Rarely noted in the "women's" debate is that most of this country's major institutions and laws were developed at a time of one-earner households. In 1950, only 12% of mothers with children under the age of six were in the labor force. That number is today more than 60%. Yet many women who now work are penalized by outdated policies that haven't kept pace with these big shifts in American society.


Government creates myriad roadblocks for women's economic progress, but Republicans largely have failed to make that case. They've instead let themselves be dragged into the tired debate over "equal pay" and "women's rights" and "gender equality." Democrats love competing on these terms because it allows them to argue that the remedy always lies with more government, no matter the adverse consequences. It's no accident that the first piece of legislation Mr. Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Purporting to snuff out wage discrimination, this is mostly a litigation bonanza for trial lawyersthe "womens rights" straw man is melting away the longer the matter is open. More and more people are paying attention and the President is suffering for the unconstitutional madate and will continue to do so as long as he shreds the Consitution. Ever heard of the "silent majority", they are hard to awaken but rest assured they are wide awake now. Despite spin and histrionocs, his mandate, erroneously spun into a womens issue, has backfired on the left. It could now help sway the coming electiion, and that too was a mistake.
Women's Issues at Glance, mixed laws . Forget Roe V Wade :
1. Violence Against Women Act (1925) is still stalled in the Senate.
2. US House of Representatives passes the "Let Women Die Bill" HR 358:
3. SB 5 Personhood (life at conception)
4 SB12/HB418 Requires ultrasound (Right to Know/See). Story about Alabama bill:
5 SB6/ SB96/ SB223 Physician guidelines regarding abortion or abortion-inducing drugs
6 SB10/HB112 Prohibit reg health ins coverage for abortion from health exchange plan
7 SB20 Prohibit reg private health ins coverage for abortion
8 SB335/HB112 Prohibits reg health ins coverage for abortion from FUTURE "Obamacare" ACA health insurance exchange
9 SB31 Adds unborn child to felony if exposed to drugs while pregnant
10 SB105/HB375 Health care providers can deny service based on their conscience (State equiv of Fed Blunt Amendment)
11 HB43 Removes Alabama from authority of Federal Affordable Care Act
12 The Alabama Supreme Court ruled doctors can be sued for the death of an unborn, pre-viable child.
13 Arizona Legislature is considering bills to de-fund Planned Parenthood, allow doctors to withhold information from patients to prevent abortions, and to allow employers to opt out of contraception coverage for religious reasons. The contraception bill also would allow employers to demand women provide reasons for why they are using birth control and allow for firing if it is for non-medical reasons. Republican Rep. Terri Proud wants to make a law that would force women to witness an abortion before having an abortion.
14 The Arizona state Senate passed a bill that would allow doctors to conceal information about disabilities or deformities affecting a fetus in order to prevent abortions.
15 Proposed Arizona prenatal nondiscrimination act allows men to block abortions.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Out to Lunch if You "Dare".

 Non Union workers lose the fight for a 30 min lunch break , thanks to a California ruling .
If you work in California, the lunch break you’d always assumed to be a right just became a privilege.And you can thank the California Supreme Court for giving your boss the legal tool to make your workday that much more miserable.Imagine having your lunch at work , and you do the stupid thing and work during your lunch break . I have done that many times in two decades . Now 'State rules private employers no longer required to provide lunch breaks.'This aught to put a smile on the die hard Schwarzenegger Governor types who tried for years to take that right away from the Public  employee's . California liberalism at best failed here to protect the worker. Yet the Blame lays with the worker ,unanimous opinion came after workers' attorneys argued that abuses are routine and widespread when companies aren't required to issue direct orders to take the breaks. They claimed employers take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues during busy times.--------------Well you know the old saying don't pray what you ask for you'll be sorry. It also get's confusing , read on .
The case was initially filed nine years ago against Dallas-based Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.
But the high court sided with businesses when it ruled that requiring companies to order breaks is unmanageable and that those decisions should be left to workers. The decision provided clarity that businesses had sought regarding the law.
The opinion written by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar explained that state law does not compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods. It stated that while employers are required to free workers of job duties for a 30-minute meal break, the employee is at liberty to use the time as they choose even if it's to work, she wrote
"The employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed," Werdegar wrote.
Tracee Lorens, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said she believed the court's decision still allowed some wiggle room for the case to get class-action certification on the meal break claims. Lorens said she was happy the court did allow a separate claim regarding the plaintiffs' receiving proper rest breaks to proceed as a class-action.
Class-action lawsuits are brought by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and others facing the same circumstances, and can include thousands of people in some cases.
It was unclear whether the opinion would reduce or increase future class-action lawsuits on the issue because the court did not dismiss the meal break violation claim by workers but instead sent it back to be reargued in trial courts.
Lorens said she will argue to the lower court that Brinker's company meal break policies still violate state wage-and-hour laws, even though the court said employers do not have to police when those breaks are taken.
Roger Thomson, executive vice president and general counsel of Brinker, said he was happy with the court's decision on the key issue of whether employers must ensure workers take their breaks.
"That was the biggest issue to us," Thomson said. "It has been allowed for our team members to work through lunch if they want or take the time off instead, and this ruling allows our team members that flexibility," he said.
Generally, employer-side attorneys were confident that Thursday's ruling would reduce future class-action lawsuits surrounding the meal break issue in California, which has cost companies millions of dollars in legal costs.
Yes, it will also leave millions of employee's without a break for lunch.

The problem with this ruling is that many employers can subtly STOP employees from taking breaks/lunch. If you are unionized, or under the civil service system, you will still get your breaks. But if you work in someplace like a Nursing Home, or you are an English as a second language speaker on a construction site, and you do not know your rights, or even if you do....You can be "dissuaded" or discouraged, or subtly forbidden from taking lunch/rest breaks. Thanks a lot CA Supreme Court--oh well, at least I didn't VOTE for you.

Monday, April 9, 2012

California Exodus

 Jerry Browns BIG problem . Tax the Rich and then Tax YOU , because of revenue shortfalls from Companies leaving the State.
Jerry Brown wants to hit California's highest-income taxpayers with billions of dollars in new taxes, and is jousting with other groups with their own tax-the-rich measures over which, if any, will win voter approval.  I have nothing against the really rich , I wish that I was well off enough to enjoy a good life , but I am a low end tax payer Brown wants to do exactly what Obama proposes on a national basis — to increase revenues by hiking taxes even further on a declining class.  Both talk about paying a “fair share,” but as the Sacramento Bee reports, the 0.5% of Californians who qualified for the current class-warfare treatment in 2009 accounted for 18.8% of all taxable income in the state — and 32% of all income taxes paid.  That’s hardly an issue of the higher income earners failing to pay a “fair share.”.
Statistics again bare on Jerry Brown  .
The number of Californians with $500,000-plus annual incomes declined dramatically from 2007 to 2009 as the state's economy stagnated, leaving fewer to tax, the California Taxpayers Association points out in a compilation of data from the Franchise Tax Board.
The latest FTB statistical report covers the 2009 tax year, and Cal-Tax points out that it listed just 98,610 California tax returns with adjusted gross income of $500,000 or more, down nearly a third from the 146,221 in 2007. Data for 2010 are not yet available.
Those 98,610 tax returns were just over a half-percent of the 14.6 million returns filed for 2009, but they accounted for 18.8 percent of the taxable income and 32 percent of the income taxes paid that year.
Economists believe that most of the decline reflects lower incomes, rather than an exodus of high-income taxpayers from the state, but there are no hard data on that point.
Expanding the 2009 sample to the top 1 percent (144,071) drops the cutoff to just under $400,000 a year in adjusted gross income. The one-percenters accounted for 21 percent of the taxable income that year and 35.5 percent of the taxes levied.
At one time, the top 1 percent of California taxpayers accounted for half of the state's income tax revenues but their incomes, tied to stocks and other capital markets, declined the most of any income class and currently, state officials say, they are believed to provide about 37 percent of the state's income taxes. That decline accounts for much, if not most, of the state's revenue declines in recent years.
Those with adjusted gross incomes of $400,000 or more paid $25.7 billion in state income taxes for 2007, but two years later, that had dropped to $12.3 billion. Their taxable incomes had declined from about $278 billion to $156 billion.
-- "In 2011, 254 California companies moved some or all of their work and jobs out of state, 26% more than in 2010, according to Irvine business consultant Joe Vranich who has been tracking these departures since 2009.The pace is accelerating, Vranich said. An average of 4.9 businesses left California each week of 2011, compared to 3.9 per week (202 total) in 2010 and one a week (51 total) in 2009. In what he calls "disinvestment events," Vranich counts companies that move jobs, facilities or headquarters out of California and "in carefully selected instances, companies making major capital investments in plants elsewhere that in the past would have been built in California," Vranich said.

Instead of having a broad-based, flatter tax structure that would produce income roughly similar to gains or losses in the economy, California’s top-heavy system produces a series of boom-or-bust revenue cycles that make long-term budget planning nearly impossible — as California’s chronic budget woes demonstrate.  Only those who lack sense or are ideologically committed to class warfare would fail to learn the clear lesson from California’s example.


When people leave these high tax states the people who want something for nothing will get the idea. Hope it's not to late for them. Since their losing their jobs anyway more will be on the move. Politicians must learn greed begets failure in the long run. And food producers must learn the same thing. Example: bread prices raises and the bread slice shrinks means make your own. Can od vegetables shrinking means can your own. And etc. Greed is a downfal .lThe flight of the wealthy is why the democrats are trying to expand federal govt.. For example, obamacare would be the same burden on every business regardless of the state where operated. There many more areas but this is just a comment not a dissertation. When a company relocates to a business friendly state, they leave most of their employees behind as tax consumers rather than the tax generators that they were. The govt. can give them jobs in govt. but that exacerbates the problem. It is a one, two, punch to the budget..

Read more here:

Read more here:

Read more here:

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Ryan's Late Budget.

 The Most hated GOP man's budget is here , though late , it's a start , but a hard pill to swallow.

 I can understand that you need to cut spending dramatically, at least in the current and recent economic environment. However the tax changes proposed in these broad sweeping gestures, at least from his Op Ed piece here, doesn't really do the trick. Hard cuts on the spending side and gimmicks on the tax side. I expect just the opposite from the Democrats - gimmicks on spending cuts and hard hits on tax increases.

One poster at the front has it right: it's not Dems or Repubs, it's both of them. If they were truly interested in more than their own brand of kool aid and reelection at any cost (to us), we wouldn't be in this mess. We have to take money out of the election and reelection process, neuter the lobbyists (take away their control on money, and build a wall between elections and special interest money that buys results, if not the people themselves. To begin with you can download his budget here (PDF). But the best way to understand it is probably to break it down by categories. One thing that surprised me when reading through the budget was just how much Ryan was actually proposing to do here. For instance: There’s no obvious reason that repeal of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulation law should be in the budget, yet there it is. Anyway, onto the summary
I read this budget proposal as a non-starter [but Dems are not the target audience] [it is] designed to fan the uber-partisan fires in the run up to 2012. Cut or defund the social-safety net and doing little to cut defense all the while making no attempt to increase revenue.• Reducing spending: This budget proposes to bring spending on domestic government agencies to below 2008 levels, and it freezes this category of spending for five years. The savings proposals are numerous, and include reforming agricultural subsidies, shrinking the federal work force through a sensible attrition policy, and accepting Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon• Welfare reform: This budget will build upon the historic welfare reforms of the late 1990s by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that lets states create a range of options and gives Medicaid patients access to better care. It proposes similar reforms to the food-stamp program, ending the flawed incentive structure that rewards states for adding to the rolls. Finally, this budget recognizes that the best welfare program is one that ends with a job—it consolidates dozens of duplicative job-training programs into more accessible, accountable career scholarships that will better serve people looking for work.• Health and retirement security: This budget's reforms will protect health and retirement security. This starts with saving Medicare. The open-ended, blank-check nature of the Medicare subsidy threatens the solvency of this critical program and creates inexcusable levels of waste. This budget takes action where others have ducked. But because government should not force people to reorganize their lives, its reforms will not affect those in or near retirement in any way.


1) Discretionary spending
a) Non-defense discretionary: Brings spending back to pre-2008 levels and freezes it there for five years.
b) Defense-related discretionary: Echoes Obama’s budget request in accepting the $78 billion in “savings” that Defense Secretary Robert Gates identified and going no further. I put “savings” in quotation marks because it’s really a reduction in the growth rate that Gates previously requested.
2) Financial system
a) Financial regulation: Repeals Dodd-Frank.
b) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: “This budget . . . proposes eventual elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, winding down their government guarantee and ending taxpayer subsidies. It supports increasing the guarantee fees Fannie and Freddie charge lenders in order to bring private capital back, shrinking their retained portfolios, and enacting various measures that would bring transparency and accountability to the GSEs.”
3) Safety net

a) Medicaid: Converts federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant that’s indexed for inflation and population growth. To offer some context, health-care costs often increase at twice the rate of inflation or more.
b) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: Better known as food stamps, SNAP gets the Medicaid treatment: block grants indexed for inflation and population growth.
c) Pell Grants: Cut back to 2008 levels, wiping out recent increases.
d) Health-care reform: Repeals the Affordable Care Act.
4) Retirement security

a) Medicare: Privatizes Medicare. Future beneficiaries will choose from a menu of private options. They won’t have the choice of the standard Medicare plan. Wealthier beneficiaries will get a small voucher and poorer beneficiaries will get a larger voucher. Vouchers grow at GDP+1%, whether or not Medicare does the same.
b) Social Security: Calls for a bipartisan process to develop reforms.
5) Taxes
a) Tax reform: “Reform the tax code by consolidating the current six brackets and cutting the top individual rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.”
b) Tax revenue: Prevents the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2013. So the revenue-neutral tax reform locks in today’s rates, which is to say it makes the Bush cuts permanent.
c) Corporate taxes: Lowers corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. “This budget would offset lower rates with a broader base, scaling back or eliminating entirely the deductions.”
6) Energy
Endorses “The American Energy Initiative”: I don’t know much about this bill, but you can find the GOP’s official case for it here.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

Obama Care & Real Reform.

 Affordable Health Care Act is not UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE its' a Money maker Policy.
Health care is obviously more important than ice cream. The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as “Obamacare,” was stuffed into law two years ago and has been serving up tax increases by the gallon and overwhelming taxpayers and jobs-creating businesses. Affordable health care is now even further out of reach.
What's wrong with Obamacare? here is a brief look .
Instead of encouraging states to improve health care at reduced costs for taxpayers, the Obama administration has decided to force states to enroll more patients in Medicaid without concern for costs. In New Jersey, these mandates entailed a 40 percent increase of enrollees at an estimated cost of more than $900 million from 2014 to 2020, when all of the act’s increases are implemented.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires every American to buy government-approved health insurance or face fines of up to $695 or 2.5 percent of his or her income. For younger senior citizens between retirement and Medicaid eligibility, this could mean a $1,400 penalty for a couple earning less than $56,000. Happy retirement!
Similarly, disastrous fines are applied to employers, who will face fines up to a $3,000 penalty for every employee who doesn’t receive sufficient coverage. Already, it’s estimated by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that more than 3 million people annually will lose their health coverage through their employer because of the health act’s mandates. With the ever-increasing costs of health care, it’s not hard to conceive employers doing cost/benefit analysis between paying a fine of $2,000-$3,000 and a $10,000 health plan.
We need to reduce health-care costs by encouraging free competition and innovation, listening to doctors who know how to eliminate needless expenses in health care and aggressively manage chronic conditions to prevent expensive treatments. These types of approaches will truly reform the care people receive and what it costs them.


They are attacking a law whose major provisions do not take effect until 2014, which means that for now, there is not much to obstruct.
Meanwhile, because significant Republican wins in November 2012 could lead to amendments or outright repeal, GOP governors have an interest in trying to undermine voters' confidence in the law by vowing to oppose it.
Yet if the law survives the aftermath of the 2012 election - and the court challenges - the governors will have an incentive to implement it themselves. That's because the law empowers the federal government to step in where states fail to take the lead.
For instance, Republican governors would face a choice between letting a Democratic administration establish a potentially more regulated version of state-based private insurance markets known as "exchanges" or designing their own.
And if these governors don't start laying the groundwork soon - deciding what new rules to issue and agencies to revamp - they risk missing the Jan. 1, 2013, deadline by which states must prove they have made enough progress to avoid a federal takeover. 

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Not Your Average Teacher.

 This is not your average Teacher , more Teacher Sex Scandals are at the core of Many Problems with Public Education.

Here is what a News Story that Ran on the TV , graced on Nancy Grace show , made it on Saturday Morning 's Good Morning America.
A Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader and former high school teacher has been indicted for allegedly having sex with a teenage student, and her mother, a principal at another school, is accused of tampering with evidence in the case.
According to indictments filed in Kenton County, Kentucky, on Thursday, 26-year-old Sarah Jones is charged with first-degree sexual assault and unlawful use of electronic means to induce a minor to engage in sexual activities. She and her mother, 55-year-old Cheryl Jones, have been released on bond.
I Read this with a bit of distraught , and pondering  how this should be addressed . The Nation had for the last decade and a half been filled with sensational stories of over than average looking young female teachers who crossed the line with their students . And Justice of course uses a double standard when treating offenders who male . If a Male teacher had sex with his female student , sure enough he would subjected to to a life sentence in a federal prison . Take one of these lovely s who make it to the classroom  does same thing . There is a almost celebrity status given to the former teacher . I don't believe that there is some kind of mass hysteria with the Public Education system trying to explain the recent surges in this pathetic practice that scandalizes the education system . This hurts all the good Teachers , yes . There are good teachers who deserve public praise , and honor . Yet who get's to be on TV is the BAD TEACHER .


The Public Educational System in America is practically now dominated by Women . A few decades ago way back in the 1960's through the 1980's there were more males who took roles as teachers and there where many more who were practically school administrators  . This sounds a bit sexist to compare then and now , and sure that back in the 1960's we had that gender bias that gave us the movement of woman's liberation over the years . Women had found their place in the political system which now they dominate . What puzzles me about women who take charge into running things . How they act , they can be vicious, and try to get their own way.The educational system needs a rollback to a time that more males take up the roll of being  a teacher . What's at the core is that women have placed an illusion of infallibility to public education . Female teachers are not always better than males , nor males better than females . I have noted that Women School Administrators like Sarah Jones Mother a school Principal are both manipulative , and cunning to cover up any error . Mrs. Jones a school principal had to cover her daughter's shortcomings . This question for and for you brings as to what else is being covered up in the educational system.